In United States v. Hall, No. 22-10230 (Apr. 5, 2023) (Branch, Brasher, Ed Carnes), the Court held, as a matter of first impression, that a district court may not sentence a defendant to home confinement for violating the terms of his supervised release where the district court has also sentenced the defendant to the statutory maximum period of imprisonment for that violation. The Court vacated Mr. Hall’s sentence to the extent it imposed a term of home confinement and remanded for resentencing.
Mr. Hall, a class C felon, violated the conditions of his supervised release. After revoking his supervised release, the district court sentenced Mr. Hall to the statutory maximum two years’ imprisonment and added one year of home confinement with location monitoring.
The Court held that such a sentence is inconsistent with the limitation that a district court may impose home confinement “only as an alternative to incarceration.” As such, the district court lacked the authority to impose an additional year of home confinement on top of the statutory maximum sentence of incarceration. In so holding, the Court joined the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Ferguson, 369 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 2004), which reasoned that a court cannot impose the maximum term of incarceration under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) and also impose a period of home confinement under (e)(4).