927 F.3d 978
7th Cir.2019Background
- William Block pleaded guilty (Alford plea) to multiple wire-fraud counts and was sentenced in 2013 to concurrent 75-month terms and concurrent three-year terms of supervised release with a special condition prohibiting solicitation of money.
- Block completed imprisonment and began supervised release on April 14, 2014. The Probation Office reported violations in December 2015 and February 2017 for soliciting funds; the court admonished him in February 2016.
- On February 28, 2017 the district court detained Block pending revocation proceedings, but no warrant or summons was ever formally issued or served on him before his supervised-release term expired on April 13, 2017.
- Block remained detained and, after delays (including competency evaluation), the court held a revocation hearing on May 3, 2018, after the supervised-release term had expired; the court revoked release and sentenced him to 60 months’ imprisonment plus two more years of supervised release.
- On appeal, Block argued the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke because (1) the supervised-release term expired before any warrant or summons issued as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i), and (2) his detention did not toll the supervised-release term under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Block) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did detention toll Block’s supervised-release term under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e)? | Detention was not "imprisonment in connection with a conviction" for another crime, so term was not tolled and expired April 13, 2017. | Detention pending revocation counts as imprisonment in connection with a conviction and therefore tolls the term. | Held: Tolling provision inapplicable because detention related to the original supervised-release revocation; term continued running and expired on April 13, 2017. |
| Did issuance of minute orders and detention order constitute a “warrant or summons” under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i)? | No; no formal warrant/summons commanding arrest or requiring appearance was issued before expiration. | Minute orders and the court’s detention order functionally served as summons/warrant because Block had notice and was detained. | Held: Neither minute orders nor detention order satisfied § 3583(i); no warrant or summons issued before expiration, so court lacked jurisdiction to revoke after expiration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) (jurisdictional defects are not waivable)
- Maranda v. United States, 761 F.3d 689 (7th Cir.) (standard of review: de novo for jurisdictional challenge)
- Hondras v. United States, 296 F.3d 601 (7th Cir.) (interpretation of § 3583(i) requiring a summons or warrant)
- Janvier v. United States, 599 F.3d 264 (2d Cir.) (statute’s bright-line requirement that a warrant or summons issue before term expiration)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (supervised-release term may be served in prison after revocation)
- Mont v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1826 (2019) (relevant commentary on tolling and statutory interpretation)
Result: The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s revocation judgment for lack of jurisdiction because no qualifying warrant or summons issued before the supervised-release term expired and the detention did not toll the term.