United States v. John Perotti
702 F. App'x 322
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- John Perotti was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of ammunition and originally sentenced under the ACCA to 210 months plus three years supervised release after the jury found three prior felonies.
- On direct appeal the Sixth Circuit had upheld counting a 1982 Ohio aggravated-robbery conviction as an ACCA predicate under the ACCA residual clause.
- After Johnson v. United States (invalidating the ACCA residual clause), Perotti obtained authorization to file a successive § 2255 petition; the district court concluded he no longer qualified for ACCA enhancement.
- At the government’s request the district court resentenced Perotti to time served and two years’ supervised release; at release he had served nearly 12 years—exceeding the now-applicable 10-year statutory maximum.
- Perotti appealed, arguing the record should reflect a corrected sentence because his over-time served could adversely affect future proceedings (federal supervised-release revocation and Ohio parole).
- The government moved that the appeal was moot because Perotti had been released from federal custody and any alleged future harms were speculative.
Issues
| Issue | Perotti's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Perotti’s appeal remains justiciable after release from federal custody | His appeal is live because his completed excess time served could harm him in future federal revocation or state parole proceedings | Moot: release removed the live controversy; claimed future harms are speculative | Appeal dismissed as moot; no live case or controversy |
| Whether potential denial of credit for over-time served in a federal supervised-release revocation creates a present injury | Over-time served may not be credited if record remains uncorrected, harming him in revocation sentencing | Speculative: would require violation, revocation hearing, sentence; cannot assume these events | Speculative and insufficient to establish Article III jurisdiction |
| Whether excessive time served must reduce supervised-release term or otherwise compel resentencing | Record should reflect actual custody to allow district court discretion under § 3583(e) to modify supervision | Excess time served does not automatically shorten supervised release; any modification is discretionary and speculative | Discretionary possibility does not save the appeal from mootness |
| Whether Ohio parole decisions create a concrete adverse consequence that preserves the appeal | OAPA may consider federal sentence and over-time served when making parole decisions | OAPA’s broad discretion makes consideration of over-time merely possible, not certain | Possibility of parole impact is too speculative to preserve jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (continued adverse consequences required to keep collateral attack live)
- Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 (1982) (future sentencing consequences insufficient when speculative)
- United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53 (2000) (excess time served does not automatically reduce supervised-release term; district court may modify under § 3583)
- Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474 (2010) (Bureau of Prisons’ role in crediting custody for sentencing calculations)
- Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (mootness as standing in time)
- United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) (case-or-controversy requirement)
- Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (mootness reviewed de novo)