Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Williams

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

December 13, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
(1) ANTHONY ISAAC WILLIAMS, Defendant.

          LeeAnn K. Bell, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for Plaintiff.

          Anthony Isaac Williams, pro se.

          MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER

          Michael J. Davis Judge United States District Court

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Anthony Isaac Williams' Pro Se Motion Regarding Supervised Release. [Docket No. 60]

         II. BACKGROUND

         On November 27, 2007, Defendant pled guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment, Felon in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). The Court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment to be followed by a term of supervised release.

         Defendant has now filed a letter motion questioning the constitutionality of supervised release. In particular, Defendant questions whether the imposition of supervised release violates the Double Jeopardy clause or the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution.

         III. DISCUSSION

         The Court is permitted to include supervised release after imprisonment by way of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a), which states:

The 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, except that the court shall include as a part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release if such a term is required by statute . . . .

         A. Double Jeopardy

         The Double Jeopardy clause “proscribes being ‘twice put in jeopardy of life or limb' for the same offense.” United States v. Bass, 794 F.2d 1305, 1308 (8th Cir. 1986) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. V). “It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” N. C. v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969) (footnotes omitted) overruled on other grounds by Ala. v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989).

         “A hearing to determine whether supervised release should be revoked, however, is not a criminal prosecution.” United States v. Bennett, 561 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir. 2009). And “a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not a new punishment but rather ‘relate[s] to the original offense.'” United States v. Richey, 758 F.3d 999, 1001 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 701 (2000)). Defendant, ‚Äútherefore, [i]s not at risk for either successive prosecution ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.