US v. Muttaqin Abdullah
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:05-cr-00014-MBS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4397]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00014-MBS-1)
November 30, 2016
Before SHEDD and
December 16, 2016
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant.
Beth Drake, Acting United States
Attorney, Jimmie Ewing, Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
after he was resentenced for his conviction for being a felon in
possession of a firearm.
At resentencing, the court imposed a
term of imprisonment of time served and a three-year term of
On appeal, Abdullah contends that the court
served nearly a year and a half more than the statutory maximum
term of imprisonment.
Abdullah argues that the district court did not have the
authority to impose a sentence above the total maximum combined
sentences for term of imprisonment and supervised release.
Because Abdullah was resentenced under
release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a) (2012) became discretionary.
We review questions of law de novo.
United States v. Strieper,
imposition of a sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007).
Abdullah acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held that
from those served by incarceration” and that “[t]he objectives
Pg: 3 of 5
of supervised release would be unfulfilled if excess prison time
were to offset and reduce terms of supervised release.”
States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59 (2000).
In Johnson, the
reduction in the term of his supervised release to compensate
available after some of his convictions were invalidated.
Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e) (2012) did not entitle the
defendant to credit based on over service of an original term of
imprisonment, stating that § 3624(e) “does not reduce the length
of a supervised release term by reason of excess time served in
Johnson, 529 U.S. at 60.
Abdullah contends, however, that to impose a sentence in
excess of the statutory maximums for term of imprisonment and
Abdullah posits that his case differs from
Johnson in that, in Johnson, the defendant would never serve the
maximum statutory sentence even if his supervised release was
Here, if Abdullah’s supervised release were ever to be
revoked, and he served the maximum three years, he would serve 1
year, 4 months, and 27 days over the statutory maximum sentence
assertion, however, ignores that Johnson compels the conclusion
that the initial term of imprisonment and subsequent term of
Pg: 4 of 5
supervised release are separate sentences and not conglomerated
or subject to being served concurrently.
We have confirmed since Johnson that a supervised release
concurrently to a term of imprisonment because the purpose of
supervised release is different from that of incarceration.
United States v. Neuhauser, 745 F.3d 125, 129 (4th Cir. 2014)
completed counted toward supervised release term); United States
tolling of supervised release while defendant absconded).
Abdullah’s term of supervised release cannot begin until he
consider the initial term of imprisonment to fulfill at least a
portion of the supervised release term because the supervised
release term was not yet ripe.
See Johnson, 529 U.S. at 57
(“the ordinary, commonsense meaning of release is to be freed
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
release term on any basis other than it is an invalid option, or
at least is unavailable for the period of time that his sentence
We conclude, however, that the district court
Pg: 5 of 5
did not abuse its discretion in imposing the three-year term of
communication, during his initial sentencing, of the court and
murder victim’s family, and his numerous assaults and offenses
while in prison, including threatening and assaulting correction
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?