By: Derek Hawkins//September 21, 2015//
Civil
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Officials: BAUER, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges
Writ of Habeas Corpus – Special Parole
No.14-2205 George H. Edwards, Jr. v. James N. Cross
Parole Commission re-imposition of special parole not allowed. Holding of Evans v. U.S. Parole Commission, 78 F.3d 262 (1996) upheld.
“There is yet another textual reason that the unconventional interpretation of “revoke” in § 3583(e) does not translate to the use of the same word in § 841(c). Section 841(c) refers to revoking a special parole term “imposed under this section”—that is to say, imposed by a judge at sentencing, not created by regulation when the “original” special parole term is revoked. As we explained in Evans, “[t]he Parole Commission cannot ‘impose’ a term of special parole any more than it can ‘sentence’ a defendant to prison.” Id. at 265. Because supervised release is imposed by the district court and the revocation and reimposition of “the term of supervised release” under § 3583(e) is also overseen by the court, the impossibility noted above regarding the Parole Commission’s authority does not arise with the unconventional interpretation of “revoke” the Court applied to § 3583(e) in Johnson—it is the district court that imposes an additional term of supervised release, not, as is the case under § 841(c), the Parole Commission. In sum, although the rationale in the now defunct McGee was persuasive to our interpretation of the same word appearing in § 841(c), there are independent textual reasons unique to § 841(c) that provide continued support for the conventional reading of “revoke” that we adopted in Evans.”
Vacated and Remanded