I'd go with the plain reading of the law. Supervised release is out of the question, and since probation wasn't imposed to begin with, probation is out of the question too.
I doubt this was a planned artifact of the clemecy order. Just one of those things.
ORDER On June 5, 2007, the defendant was sentenced to a term of thirty months in prison and two years of supervised release as a result of his March 6, 2007 conviction on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal investigators. Judgment at 3-4; see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(a)(2000) (stating that "[t]he court, in imposing a sentence to a term of imprisonment for a felony or a misdemeanor, may include as a part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment"). In addition, the Court imposed a fine of $250,000 and a special assessment of $400 on the defendant. Judgment at 6. On Ju1y 2, 2007, the President of the United States commuted the term of incarceration imposed upon the defendant by the Court, "leaving intact and in effect the two-year term of supervised release, with all its conditions, and all other components of the sentence." Grant of Executive Clemency at 1. It has been brought to the Court's attention that the United States Probation Office for the District Court of the District of Columbia intends to contact the defendant imminently to require him to begin his term of supervised release. Strictly construed, the statute authorizing the imposition of supervised release indicates that such release should occur only after the defendant has already served a term of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C.Sec. 3583(a) (stating that the defendant "[may] be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment") (emphasis added). That is, despite the President's direction that the defendant's prison sentence be commuted and his term of supervised release remain intact, see Grant of Executive Clemency at 1, Sec. 3583 does not appear to contemplate a situation in which a defendant may be placed under supervised release without first completing a term of incarceration. It is therefore unclear how Sec. 3583 should be interpreted in unusual circumstances such as these, and the Court seeks the parties' positions as to whether the defendant should be required to report to the Probation Office immediately, whether he should be allowed to remain free of supervision until some later, more appropriate time, or, indeed, whether the plain meaning of Sec. 3583 precludes the application of a term of supervised release altogether now that the prison sentence has been commuted. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall, by July 9, 2007, submit to the Court their respective positions regarding the application of Sec. 3583 in light of the President's commutation of the defendant's prison sentence. 1 SO ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 2007. --- 1 If either party believes that it would be helpful to solicit clarification from the White House regarding the President's position on the proper interpretation of Sec. 3583 in light of his Grant of Executive Clemency, they are encouraged to do so.
March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 March 2009 April 2009