United States v. Shane White , 633 F. App'x 444 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 08 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30092
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:03-cr-00007-DWM-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SHANE STEVEN WHITE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 1, 2016
Seattle, Washington
Before: KOZINSKI and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK,**
District Judge.
1. White’s five-month term of home confinement does not count as
“imprisonment” for purposes of calculating his post-revocation supervised release
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable William Horsley Orrick III, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
page 2
under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) (2002). Section 3583(h) requires courts to credit only
the aggregate terms of imprisonment previously “imposed upon revocation” of a
defendant’s supervised release. Because the district court ordered home
confinement upon a modification of supervised release—not a revocation—the
five-month period falls outside the scope of § 3583(h), no matter whether home
confinement amounts to imprisonment. Accordingly, the district court was correct
in not subtracting the home-confinement period from the maximum term of
supervised release when calculating the length of White’s post-revocation
supervised release term.
2. The district court did not err in failing to consider as an additional term of
imprisonment the two months White spent in detention pending sentencing on his
revocation of supervised release. The Bureau of Prisons will credit the two months
as part of White’s total ten-month sentence of imprisonment upon revocation. See
18 U.S.C. § 3585; United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333 (1992) (holding that
the Attorney General, and not the district court, has the authority to calculate and
award jail-time credit); see also United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual §
7B1.3 App. Note 3 (2015) (explaining that the Bureau of Prisons credits detention
toward a term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation).
page 3
AFFIRMED.