Possible Sentence in Revocation Proceedings is Based on the Original Conviction, Not the Violation Conduct

United States v. Collins, 2017 WL 586436 (February 14, 2017) (KS, published): Following a second revocation of supervised release, Collins argued that the relevant “offense” referred to in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) is the violative conduct that gave rise to the first revocation. If he was right, the district court properly sentenced him to only one year in prison. Section 3583(e)(3) directs a court to sentence the accused “to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in such term of supervised release . . .” The panel said that Collins’ interpretation was incorrect. “Offense” in § 3583(e)(3) means the original case for which the accused was convicted. Here, the district court could have sentenced Collins to three years for the Class B felony for which he was first sentenced. The case is remanded for resentencing.