United States v. Oswalt

Defendant appealed the terms of his supervised release, arguing that they exceed the statutory minimum under 18 U.S.C. 3583(h). Defendant argued that the district court's failure to aggregate across counts fails to serve the purposes of the supervised-release statute, asserting that supervised release aims to rehabilitate rather than punish. The court concluded that defendant's argument about the purposes of supervised release is unavailing because it conflicts with the clear meaning of section 3583(h); the statute requires the sentencing judge to consider factors unrelated to rehabilitation; and the district court must consider whether the term of supervised release would "afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct" and "protect the public from further crimes of the defendant." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Oswalt" on Justia Law