United States v. John A. Cunningham
2015 WL 5128797
11th Cir.2015Background
- Cunningham was originally sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release for failing to register as a sex offender.
- After release, Cunningham violated supervised release and received eight months’ imprisonment followed by 24 months of supervised release in 2011.
- He again violated supervised release, receiving 14 months’ imprisonment followed by 14 months of supervised release in 2013.
- Upon a third violation, the district court revoked supervised release and sentenced Cunningham to 24 months’ imprisonment with no supervision follow-up.
- Cunningham appealed, challenging the legality of a 24-month revocation sentence as exceeding the remaining 14 months of his then-current supervised release, raising statutory interpretation questions under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) and § 3583(h).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court impose more than 14 months in prison on revocation? | Cunningham argues § 3583(e)(3) caps imprisonment to the term authorized for the current offense, i.e., 14 months. | The government argues § 3583(e)(3) authorizes per-revocation caps not tied to the initial term, and § 3583(h) governs post-revocation supervision, not aggregate imprisonment. | Per-revocation caps control; no aggregation into 14-month limit. |
| Does § 3583(h) aggregation cap constrain § 3583(e)(3) sentence? | Aggregation in § 3583(h) binds total post-revocation imprisonment and supervision. | Aggregation does not limit the § 3583(e)(3) term, which is defined by the offense's statute. | Aggregation does not override § 3583(e)(3) per-revocation caps. |
| Should the statutory amendments (PROTECT Act) affect how revocation sentences are calculated? | The amendments imply a combined limit across revocations for the same offense. | Congress intended per-revocation caps and to permit new supervision after imprisonment under § 3583(h). | Amendments support per-revocation caps and post-revocation supervision, not aggregation across revocations. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 425 F.3d 987 (11th Cir. 2005) (revocation caps are per-revocation limits subject to credit for time served)
- United States v. Williams, 675 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2012) (aggregation not required to constrain §3583(e)(3) by §3583(h))
- United States v. Spencer, 720 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (aggregation interpretation rejected)
- United States v. Hampton, 633 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 2011) (aggregation limits as post-revocation constraint)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (precedential note on revocation authority)