United States v. Cortes Claudio
This text of 152 F. Supp. 2d 177 (United States v. Cortes Claudio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION & ORDER
Defendant William Cortes Claudio has filed a Motion to Correct Sentence. (Dkt. 353) In the motion, Defendant asserts that the Court incorrectly considered evidence of a prior conviction and used that prior conviction evidence to improperly increase Defendant’s term of supervised release from a maximum of five years to ten years. See 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1). 1 Defendant is incorrect. Defendant also filed a Motion Requesting Court Reissue Order to Lack of Receipt (Dkt.462) whereby Defendant avers that he never received a copy of an order denying his previous Motion to Correct Sentence.
The Court agrees that Defendant had no prior conviction and no prior conviction attestation was used by the Court to set Defendant’s term of supervised release at *179 10 years. Rather, the Court looked at the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1)-(3) and § 3553(a)(2)(A)(B)(C) & (D). 2
Defendant was convicted of violating § 841(b)(l)(A)(ii), a class A felony. The Court sentenced Defendant, who was subject to 10 years to life, to 151 months in prison and 10 years supervised release. Defendant does not contest the length of the prison term, but rather focuses on the supervised release term.
Section 3583(a) & (b) directs that if the court imposes a term of supervised release for a Class A felony, it shall be no more than 5 years. However, § 3583(b) contains language which permits a court to go above the limits set forth in § 3583. “Except as otherwise provided” clearly allows a court, where so directed, to impose a longer term of supervised release. This is exactly what 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) directs. Section 841(b)(l)(A)(ii) states that *180 “[a]ny sentence under this subparagraph shall, in the absence of such prior conviction, impose a supervised release of at least 5 years in addition to such term of imprisonment . 3 See United States v. Williams, 65 F.3d 301, 309 (2d Cir.1995) (holding that § 3583(b)(1) does not apply to an offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)); United States v. Eng, 14 F.3d 165, 172-73 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 807, 115 S.Ct. 54, 130 L.Ed.2d 13 (1994) (holding that provision of § 841(b)(1)(A) was not subject to five year maximum of § 3583(b)(1) since a construction would rob the term “at least” of any meaning); United States v. Gallego, 247 F.3d 1191, 1199 n. 17 (11th Cir.2001) (Finding that the defendant’s term of five years supervised release was proper according to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (requiring that the court impose “at least 5 years” of supervised release when a defendant possesses five or more kilograms of cocaine)); United States v. Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 646-48 (4th Cir.2001) (holding that a sentence of five years supervised release under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) is not error at all, because section 841(b)(1)(C) provides for “at least 3 years” of supervised release and 18 U.S.C. § 3583 does not provide otherwise); United States v. Heckard, 238 F.3d 1222, 1236-37 (10th Cir.2001) (same); United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 933 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1026, 121 S.Ct. 600, 148 L.Ed.2d 513 (2000) (same); United States v. Le-May, 952 F.2d 995, 998 (8th Cir.1991) (held that the maximum-term limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b) does not apply when a statute such as 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) expressly authorizes a longer term of supervised release); United States v. Bongiorno, 139 F.3d 640, 640-41 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 865, 119 S.Ct. 155, 142 L.Ed.2d 127 (1998) (upheld a six-year term of supervised release under § 841(b)(1), rather than the three-year maximum term under § 3583(b)(2)); United States v. Garcia, 112 F.3d 395, 398 (9th Cir.1997) (adopting the holding in United States v. Eng, 14 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 1994) as the law of the Ninth Circuit as well). “[A] maximum sentence set by statute trumps a higher sentence set forth in the Guidelines.” Edwards v. United States, 523 U.S. 511, 514, 118 S.Ct. 1475, 140 L.Ed.2d 703 (1998). See also Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 497, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); United States v. Japa, 994 F.2d 899, 905 (1st Cir.1993).
A court should, as a matter of course, explain its decisions. An imposition of a supervised release term is no exception. Section 841(b)(l)(A)(ii) requires a court to impose a supervised release term of at least 5 years. The Court need not explain for imposing a ten year term of supervised release because § 841(b)(1)(A) required the Court to impose a term of supervised release of “at least” 5 years. Thus, the statutory maximum term of supervised release under this section is life. See United States v. Gibbs, 58 F.3d 36 (2d Cir.1995).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
152 F. Supp. 2d 177, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9604, 2001 WL 760799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cortes-claudio-prd-2001.