United States v. Stuart Jeffrey Paskow

The issue in this case is whether the ex post facto clause is violated when a statutory amendment that increases a penalty to be imposed upon the revocation of supervised release is applied in a case in which the underlying offense was committed before the amendment was adopted but the conduct that led to revocation of supervised release occurred afterwards. We conclude that applying the amendment under such circumstances violates the ex post facto clause.

I.

Stuart Jeffrey Paskow conspired to receive the proceeds of a bank robbery and received of the proceeds of a bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 , 2113(c), in April and May of 1988. He pled guilty and was sen tenced in August, 1990, to eight months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

On December 31, 1988, several months after Paskow committed that underlying offense, an amendment to the supervised release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583 , became effective. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, 102 Stat. 4181 , 4464, Pub.L. 100-690 § 7303 (b). The amendment provides:

18 U.S.C. § 3583 (g). Before the amendment was enacted, violation of supervised release for possession of a controlled substance carried no…