United States v. Johnson, No. 14-1063 (2d Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence after he violated a condition of supervised release. Defendant argued that, because the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, had since amended the statute under which he had been convicted, the district court should have determined the maximum term of incarceration by reference to the post-FSA classification of his offense conduct. The court concluded that defendant's challenge is foreclosed by its recent decision in United States v. Ortiz, where the court held that the penalties applicable when a defendant violates the conditions of supervised release are "determined by reference to the law in effect at the time of the defendant's underlying offense." Finally, the court concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in Dorsey v. United States does not compel a different outcome when the underlying sentence was imposed pre-FSA but revocation proceedings are held subsequent to the FSA's effective date. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 3, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.