Summary
This Supreme Court opinion addresses whether a federal district court may consider the retributive purpose of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) when deciding whether to revoke a defendant’s term of supervised release. Applying the canon of statutory interpretation expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the Court held that Congress intentionally omitted this factor from the sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Consequently, district courts are prohibited from considering retribution for the underlying offense during supervised release revocation proceedings. The Sixth Circuit’s judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a district court may consider the retributive sentencing factor in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) when deciding whether to revoke supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
- What appellate standard and remedy apply when a district court impermissibly relies on § 3553(a)(2)(A) in revoking supervised release.
Holdings
- A district court may not consider § 3553(a)(2)(A) when deciding whether to revoke a defendant's term of supervised release.
- If a defendant preserved an objection and the district court relied on § 3553(a)(2)(A) in a nonharmless way, the court of appeals should vacate the revocation order and remand for application of the correct standard. If the objection was not preserved, plain-error review governs.
Key quotations
“District courts cannot consider §3553(a)(2)(A) when revoking supervised release.” (606 U.S. at 194)
“The “requirement” here is very much substantive: District courts may not consider the retributive purpose of §3553(a)(2)(A) before revoking supervised release.” (606 U.S. at 202)
Factual background
Esteras pleaded guilty in 2018 to conspiring to distribute heroin and received 12 months in prison followed by six years of supervised release. Three years into supervised release, he was arrested after allegedly threatening the mother of his children and firing three shots into her vehicle; the related municipal charges were later dismissed at the victim's request. The District Court found supervised-release violations, revoked supervised release, and imposed 24 months of reimprisonment, stating that Esteras's prior sentences had been lenient and that the sentence was intended in part to promote respect for the law.
Procedural history
Esteras pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute heroin and received imprisonment followed by supervised release. After finding that he violated supervised-release conditions, the District Court revoked supervised release and imposed 24 months of reimprisonment, relying in part on the need to promote respect for the law under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that courts may consider § 3553(a)(2)(A) during supervised-release revocation proceedings. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Sixth Circuit judgments, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The Sixth Circuit judgments were vacated and the cases remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. On remand, any preserved, nonharmless reliance on § 3553(a)(2)(A) requires vacatur of the revocation order and application of the correct standard.