Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves two petitioners appealing their continued imprisonment due to special parole revocations, specifically addressing the interpretation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c). Initially convicted for drug-related offenses, the petitioners faced additional incarceration after their special parole terms were revoked. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit evaluated whether revocation of special parole results in a new special parole term or converts it into a regular imprisonment term. The court concluded that upon revocation, special parole should convert to regular imprisonment, aligning with the principles outlined in McGee and rejecting the Parole Commission's interpretation that allows for a new special parole term post-revocation. The court emphasized the statutory authority governing parole terms and noted that legislative amendments do not retroactively change judicial interpretations. The petitioners were granted relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for their statutory claims, leading to the reversal of the district court's ruling and remand for appropriate writs. Immediate bail was granted to one of the petitioners, underscoring the court's stance against perpetual cycles of special parole revocation and re-imposition.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of 28 U.S.C. 2241 for Statutory Violationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court allows the petitioners to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241(c)(3) for alleged statutory violations related to their custody.
Reasoning: Although their claims are statutory, relief is available under 2241(c)(3) for individuals in custody violating U.S. laws.
Judicial Interpretation versus Legislative Amendmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court holds that legislative amendments do not retroactively alter judicial interpretations, emphasizing this in the context of statutory changes post-McGee.
Reasoning: The argument against the Commission's stance is based on the premise that legislative amendments do not imply prior judicial interpretations were incorrect, as established in Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc.
Parole Commission Authority under 841(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court limits the Parole Commission's authority, ruling it cannot impose new special parole terms post-revocation, and emphasizes judicial determination of parole terms.
Reasoning: The Parole Commission could grant parole from this new term, but it lacks the authority to label this parole as 'special' or to apply the forfeiture rule of 841(c) after a subsequent return to prison.
Revocation and Conversion of Special Parolesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Upon revocation of special parole, the court determines that the term converts into a regular imprisonment term, not allowing a new special parole term to be imposed.
Reasoning: This document argues that the first revocation converts special parole into regular imprisonment, which leads to release under normal parole conditions.
Special Parole under 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examines whether a second special parole term can be imposed after revocation of the first, concluding that special parole converts to regular imprisonment upon revocation.
Reasoning: The district court ruled against both Evans and Van Russell, concluding that a new term of special parole begins after the revocation of special parole.