Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Pla
Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-16815
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; September 19, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The case involves an appeal from Brian Pla, who was originally sentenced to 38 months in prison for importing cocaine and subsequently served a term of supervised release. After multiple violations, including positive marijuana tests, his supervised release was revoked, and he was sentenced to an additional nine months of imprisonment plus 51 months of new supervised release. Pla's counsel filed a motion to withdraw under Anders v. California, asserting that the appeal is frivolous. The court reviews the legality of the sentence de novo and assesses whether any legal points are arguable. The key legal issue on appeal is whether 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) requires credit for time previously served on supervised release upon its revocation. The statute permits a new term of supervised release after imprisonment but does not explicitly state that credit for prior supervised release time must be given. This ambiguity suggests that credit for prior supervised release time is not required, as supported by previous court rulings indicating that a new term of supervised release begins anew without credit for time served. The Supreme Court's interpretation emphasizes that additional exceptions to legislative provisions are not to be implied without clear intent from Congress. Credit for time served in prison post-revocation is strictly limited to that time only, reflecting congressional intent to exclude other forms of credit, as noted in subsection (e)(3), which similarly denies credit for time served on supervised release. This interpretation aligns with decisions from other circuit courts, specifically U.S. v. Pettus and U.S. v. Cade. The appellant argues that the original three-year supervised release sentence should restrict the court's authority upon revocation; however, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) mandates revocation for specific violations, such as failing drug tests. Upon revocation, a defendant faces imprisonment up to the limits set by subsection (e)(3), which allows for an additional prison term or supervised release not exceeding five years for class A felonies, like the one for which the appellant was convicted. The relevant subsections, when read together, clarify that the length of any additional supervised release and prison term is determined by the class of felony, not the original supervised release term. Consequently, the total duration of pre-revocation and post-revocation supervised release can surpass the limits outlined in § 3583(b). Counsel's motion to withdraw is approved, and the revocation and sentence are upheld.