United States v. Robert Cross
846 F.3d 188
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Robert Cross was convicted of a federal marijuana offense (2006), sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment and 48 months’ supervised release.
- Supervised release began in August 2010. Over the next 32 months Cross committed two state-law offenses (drug possession and theft), both violating his supervised-release conditions.
- In April 2013 the district court first revoked Cross’s supervised release based on the drug-possession violation, ordered eight months’ imprisonment, and reinstated supervised release for 24 months after he served that prison term.
- Cross completed the eight-month sentence in December 2013 and resumed supervised release; the district court did not learn of the theft offense until April 2015 (after Cross’s guilty plea in state court).
- In June 2015 the district court revoked supervised release again based on the theft (committed earlier during the same supervised-release period), sentenced Cross to one day in custody and another 60 months of supervised release. Cross appealed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to revoke a second time for conduct that occurred before the first revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court loses authority to revoke supervised release a second time for violations that occurred before an earlier revocation | Cross: first revocation terminated that supervised-release term; a new term began after imprisonment, so court lacked authority to revoke the second term for prior conduct | Government: revocation does not terminate supervised release — it requires serving part/all of the term in prison, so supervisory authority continues until expiration/termination | Court held revocation does not terminate supervised release; the court retained authority to revoke again for violations committed during the still-pending supervised-release term |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (revoked supervised-release term survives to be served in prison; revocation ≠ termination)
- United States v. Goins, 516 F.3d 416 (standard of review cited for jurisdictional question)
- United States v. Winfield, 665 F.3d 107 (district court retains § 3583(e) power to impose additional prison time post-revocation)
- United States v. Wing, 682 F.3d 861 (discusses effect of § 3583(h) and interpretation issues)
- Maracich v. Spears, 133 S. Ct. 2191 (statutory interpretation principle favoring harmony of provisions)