United States v. Martini (Cassesse)
685 F.3d 186, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14197, 2012 WL 2819334 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lifetime term of supervised release, imposed for a violation of supervised release, is not subject to a statutory reduction by the length of an imposed prison term under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), as the subtraction concept does not practically apply to an indeterminate lifetime term.
Facts:
- In 1987, Michael Cassesse was convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin and sentenced to five years’ probation.
- In 1991, Michael Cassesse was convicted of possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of heroin.
- Michael Cassesse was sentenced to 87 months of imprisonment, a consecutive term of 87 months for violating his probation, and a lifetime term of supervised release.
- One of the conditions of his supervised release was to refrain from new criminal conduct.
- In 2007, while serving his term of supervised release, Michael Cassesse was indicted on several new charges, including racketeering.
- Michael Cassesse subsequently pled guilty to the racketeering charge.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Cassesse was indicted on racketeering charges and also charged with violating a condition of his supervised release (committing a new crime) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- Michael Cassesse pled guilty to the racketeering charge.
- The District Court sentenced Michael Cassesse to 90 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release for the racketeering conviction.
- The District Court accepted Michael Cassesse's guilty plea for the supervised release violation.
- The District Court imposed a sentence of twelve months of imprisonment for the supervised release violation, to run consecutively to the 90-month racketeering sentence.
- The District Court revoked Cassesse's previously imposed lifetime supervised release and imposed a new lifetime term of supervised release for the violation.
- Michael Cassesse (Defendant-Appellant) appealed the June 19, 2009, judgment of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, contending that the twelve months of imprisonment imposed for the supervised release violation should have been subtracted from the lifetime term of supervised release.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) require a district court to reduce a judicially imposed lifetime term of supervised release by the period of imprisonment also imposed for a supervised release violation?
Opinions:
Majority - Jon O. Newman, Circuit Judge
No, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) does not require a district court to reduce a judicially imposed lifetime term of supervised release by the period of imprisonment also imposed for a supervised release violation. The court found it highly unlikely that Congress expected the subtraction concept of § 3583(h) to be applied to a lifetime term of supervised release. Literal application of subtraction to a lifetime term has only conceptual, not practical, meaning, as established in cases like United States v. Rausch. Attempts to quantify a 'lifetime' for subtraction, such as converting to a fixed term, using Sentencing Guidelines offense levels, or applying life expectancy, were deemed problematic. Fixed terms allow circumvention, and life expectancy introduces variables unrelated to penological purposes and potential age discrimination. Therefore, the unadjusted lifetime term of supervised release was not unlawful. The court also held that the District Court's explanation of the sentence was adequate, not rising to the level of plain error, because it had thoroughly considered nearly identical sentencing factors for the related racketeering conviction and indicated it had 'reviewed everything,' satisfying the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and § 3553(c).
Analysis:
This case provides crucial guidance on the interpretation and application of supervised release statutes, particularly regarding lifetime terms. It clarifies that the subtraction provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), which reduces a supervised release term by time served for a violation, is not intended to apply to a lifetime term due to its impracticality. This decision prevents complex and potentially arbitrary calculations, ensuring consistency in how 'lifetime' supervised release is treated in federal courts. The ruling impacts future sentencing by establishing that a lifetime term, once imposed, remains a lifetime term despite subsequent imprisonment for violations, thereby simplifying judicial discretion in such cases.
