Home detention cannot exceed remaining incarceration authority

Listen to this article

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that home detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(19) may be imposed only as a substitute for incarceration and therefore cannot, when combined with a prison sentence, exceed the maximum term of imprisonment authorized by statute.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two felony offenses in 2018 and was sentenced to imprisonment followed by supervised release. After repeatedly violating the conditions of his supervised release shortly after his release from prison, the U.S. District Court revoked supervision and imposed a sentence of 41 months’ imprisonment followed by a lifetime term of supervised release. As a condition of that supervision, the court also ordered the defendant to serve 629 days of home detention, nearly 21 months.

The defendant moved for reconsideration, arguing that the sentence exceeded the court’s statutory authority. Because the applicable revocation statute authorized a maximum of 48 months’ imprisonment, the defendant contended that after imposing 41 months in prison, the court could require no more than seven additional months of home detention. The district court rejected that argument, concluding that home detention is distinct from incarceration and therefore need not count toward the statutory maximum.

The 4th Circuit disagreed. Focusing on the language of § 3563(b)(19), the court noted that home detention may be imposed “only as an alternative to incarceration.” The panel interpreted “alternative” according to its ordinary meaning as a choice between mutually exclusive options. Under that reading, a court may impose home detention only to the extent that it forgoes an equivalent period of incarceration that otherwise could have been imposed.

Because the defendant received 41 months of imprisonment, the district court had authority to impose no more than seven additional months of home detention as a substitute for the remaining seven months of incarceration available under the 48-month statutory cap. The court rejected the government’s argument that no one-for-one limitation exists, reasoning that such an interpretation would provide no meaningful limit on the duration of home confinement.

Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

The 6 page opinion is U.S. v. Watson, Lawyers Weekly No. 001-206-26.