Background
Opherro Jones appealed his sentence of eight months imprisonment and twelve months supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. His counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California stating there were no non-frivolous arguments for appeal, while Jones filed pro se supplemental briefs contesting the supervised release term and its duration.
The court’s reasoning
The panel conducted an independent review of the record and found no non-frivolous arguments to be made on direct appeal. The court held that the district court was permitted to impose twelve months of supervision because the aggregate length of imprisonment for the three revocation sentences was twenty-four months under Section eighteen United States Code Section three five eight three subsection h. The court further found that the supervised release term could extend beyond September twenty-first, two thousand twenty-six, as supervised release does not run while an individual remains in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. The term was deemed substantively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances. However, the court remanded the case to correct the written judgment because the district court had unconditionally waived interest on restitution orally, and the oral pronouncement controls over the written condition.
What it means going forward
The decision affirms the substantive sentence but requires the district court to amend the written judgment to match the oral waiver of restitution interest.