Similar to a refund check from the cable company or a store credit at Wal-Mart, a South Carolina man who served more than 10 years in federal prison recently moved for the court to apply some of that active time to his supervised release.
Unanimously, the court was unmoved.
Andrea Bloodworth, sentenced to 204 months behind bars in 2008 after being deemed an armed career criminal, benefited from the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. United States that invalidated the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause. The high court found that the clause included some overly vague, catch-all language regarding acts that could lead to harsher sentencing.
As such, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina resentenced Bloodworth to time served since he had already served more than the statutory maximum of 120 months.
Prison records show that Bloodworth was released this March.
But Bloodworth, apparently, would like a refund. He asked the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to look at whether Chief District Judge Terry Wooten was wrong in not allowing Bloodworth to “bank” his overserved prison time and use it toward his supervised release.
The 4th Circuit cited another Supreme Court case, 2000’s United States v. Johnson (no relation), in breaking the bad news to Bloodworth.
“The objectives of supervised release would be unfulfilled if excess prison time were to offset and reduce terms of supervised release,” the court wrote, quoting the earlier Johnson.
At the time of this writing, this reporter is looking at the Blu-ray player he bought a month ago and recently tried to connect to his TV, only to discover that it doesn’t work. Without the receipt or even the box it came in, this one will likely end up in the loss column.
But like Bloodworth, we’re going to plead our case and see what happens.