United States v. Richards

The finding that a provision under § 3583 is unconstitutional (1) “applies only when a defendant commits a discrete set of federal criminal offenses specified”, (2) “takes away the judge’s discretion to decide whether violation of a condition of supervised release should result in imprisonment and for how long”, and (3) “limits the judge’s discretion in a particular manner: by imposing a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of ‘not less than 5 years.’” United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369, 2386 (2019). “[A] district court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences after revocation of multiple concurrent terms of supervised release.” United States v. Xinidakis, 598 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010).

Defendant appealed his consecutive 24-month sentence, imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). Defendant assigned error to the standard of proof used and the court’s failure to require a jury. Defendant argued that § 3583(g) was unconstitutional because it allowed a judge to replace a jury, and that the sentences violated his Double Jeopardy rights because they were based on the same conduct. The finding that a provision under § 3583 is unconstitutional (1) “applies only when a defendant commits a discrete set of federal criminal offenses specified”, (2) “takes away the judge’s discretion to decide whether violation of a condition of supervised release should result in imprisonment and for how long”, and (3) “limits the judge’s discretion in a particular manner: by imposing a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of ‘not less than 5 years.’” United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369, 2386 (2019). “[A] district court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences after revocation of multiple concurrent terms of supervised release.” United States v. Xinidakis, 598 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court held that § 3583 was constitutional, reasoning that it gave the judge sentencing discretion and imposed no mandatory minimum. Further, the sentences were based (1) on two separate acts of possession; (2) on separate counts in the indictment; and (3) on inferences from all relevant evidence, the defendant’s Double Jeopardy rights were not violated. AFFIRMED.