United States v. Jose Romero Liero

Liero appeals his nine-month sentence for violating conditions of his supervised release. We consider whether 21 U.S.C. § 960 and 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (a), which require the imposition of a term of supervised release following a sentence of imprisonment, are unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

I

Liero pled guilty to violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 , 960 by importing marijuana and was sentenced to fifteen months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. After his release from prison, Liero violated the conditions of supervised release by, among other things, testing positive for marijuana and failing to report for drug tests. Noting that this was the second time Liero had violated supervised release, the district judge sent him back to prison for nine months. Liero argues that, under Apprendi , the sentencing judge was not authorized to impose supervised release in the first place and so lacked authority to punish him for violating its terms.

Apprendi holds that “[ojther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must…