924 F.3d 122
4th Cir.2019Background
- Phillip Jazir Thompson, a Jamaican national, was sentenced in 2004 with a five-year term of supervised release that ran from June 16, 2010 to June 16, 2015; a special condition prohibited reentry without permission and required reporting within 72 hours if he returned.
- Thompson was deported shortly after release, reentered the U.S. twice without permission (detained Apr. 16, 2011, then deported May 25, 2011), and a petition alleging supervised-release violations was filed in July 2011 with an arrest warrant issued.
- Thompson again returned to the U.S. no later than December 2014, used aliases, obtained identification, engaged in drug trafficking and money-handling activity, and did not report to probation; he was arrested in Florida in June 2017.
- The probation officer filed a September 2017 addendum alleging new violations; the district court held a revocation hearing in January 2018, found Thompson had absconded and tolled his supervised-release term, revoked release, and sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit agreed that fugitive tolling can apply but concluded the district court erred in determining when tolling ended and whether its jurisdiction extended to the January 2018 hearing; the court vacated and remanded for further findings and consideration of alternative bases for jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Thompson's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fugitive tolling applies when defendant reentered U.S. and concealed himself from supervision | Fugitive tolling should require active evasion of a pending petition or awareness of charges; mere reentry without reporting is insufficient | Fugitive tolling applies when a defendant absconds from supervision (flight from supervision, not from a specific petition) | Fugitive tolling applies where defendant knowingly absconded from supervision and actively concealed himself (Buchanan standard) |
| When tolling began and ended (timing) — did tolling extend jurisdiction through Jan. 2018 revocation hearing? | Tolling did not justify jurisdiction in Jan. 2018 because release term expired June 16, 2015 | Tolling began no later than Dec. 2014 and continued such that more than six months remained when arrested in June 2017 (government also argued earlier 2011 absconding may toll additional time) | Court agreed start date of tolled period could be Dec. 2014 but held tolling ended when Thompson was taken into custody in June 2017; tolled restart left only six months remaining (ended Dec. 2017), so district court erred in finding tolling continued through Jan. 2018; remanded to determine if earlier 2011 absconding or other tolling fills the gap |
| Whether alternative bases could support jurisdiction for Jan. 2018 revocation | N/A (Thompson argued no jurisdiction) | §3624(e) tolling while imprisoned in connection with a conviction; or §3583(i) delayed-revocation exception where warrant/summons issued before expiration and delay was reasonably necessary | Court directed district court on remand to consider (1) whether imprisonment from June 2017 to Jan. 2018 tolled under §3624(e) and (2) whether §3583(i)’s delayed-revocation exception applies; vacated and remanded for factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Buchanan, 638 F.3d 448 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizes fugitive tolling for supervised release when defendant absconds from supervision)
- United States v. Ignacio Juarez, 601 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2010) (fugitive tolling begins when defendant absconds from supervision, even absent a warrant)
- United States v. Island, 916 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2019) (fugitive tolling may begin at warrant issuance; courts examine when authorities could resume supervision)
- United States v. Murguia-Oliveros, 421 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2005) (fugitive tolling determined to begin at warrant issuance despite earlier absconding)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (courts have independent obligation to determine subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (party asserting jurisdiction bears burden of establishing it)
- United States v. Ide, 624 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2010) (interpreting when detention is "in connection with a conviction" for tolling under §3624(e))