Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Johnson
March 1, 2000529 U.S. 53
Summary
Justice Kennedy delivered the unanimous opinion holding that excess time served in prison does not automatically reduce a subsequent term of supervised release. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), supervised release begins upon actual release from imprisonment, not when the prisoner should have been released. The statutory text is unambiguous, making the rule of lenity inapplicable, and this reading accords with supervised release’s rehabilitative purpose. A district court may address equitable concerns by modifying release conditions or, after one year, terminating supervision under the applicable statutory standards. The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and remanded. There were no separate opinions.
Holding
- Whether excess imprisonment reduces the length of a subsequent term of supervised release.. Supervised release commences upon actual release from imprisonment, and excess prison time does not automatically reduce its length.
- Whether the rule of lenity changes the interpretation of § 3624(e).. The rule of lenity does not apply because the statute is unambiguous.
Docket 98-1696
Cited authorities
Cited by
- Ford v. Caulfield
- Ventura v. FMC Warden
- United States v. Raúl Domínguez-Figueroa
- Winegar v. Boncher
- Gonzalez v. Pierre-Mike
- Ultra Petroleum Corp. and Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
- United States of America, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Robert Brown, Iii, Defendant, Appellant/cross-Appellee
- United States v. Alcantara-Mendez