Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Thomas Page, United States of America v. Daryl Fullum

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided March 4, 1998No. 96-4329, 96-4345Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMerritt, Circuit Judge

These two eases arise because Congress recently has passed a number of new statutes governing terms of supervised release, statutes which alter previous law and create a series of problems of interpretation. The first statute we must interpret in this appeal is 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), which enables a District Court to reimpose supervised release as part of the sentence for a defendant who has violated the terms of his original supervised release. I agree with the majority that the application of section 3583(h) to defendants Page and Fullum does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause based on the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Kansas v. HendricksSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  3. United States v. UrserySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Warden v. MarreroSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Bradley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API