United States of America v. Anthony Marrero

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-3753
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANTHONY MARRERO,
Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
D.C. Crim. No. 91-cr-00014-3
District Judge: The Honorable Raymond L. Finch, Chief Judge
Argued: May 7, 2004
Before: BARRY, AM BRO, and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: May 25, 2004)
Stephen A. Brusch, Esq. (Argued)
Suite 2G
International Plaza
P.O. Box 988
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas
USVI, 00804
Attorney for Appellant

-- 1 of 3 --

1Appellant also argued that assuming his term of supervised release had expired, the
delay caused by the government in holding his revocation hearing was not reasonably
necessary.
2
Tracey Christopher, Esq. (Argued)
St. Clair Theodore, Esq.
Office of the United States Attorney
1108 King Street, Suite 201
Christiansted, St. Croix
USVI, 00820
Attorney for Appellee
OPINION
BARRY, Circuit Judge
By order entered August 22, 2003, the District Court revoked the term of
supervised release appellant Anthony Marrero was then serving and sentenced him to a
term of imprisonment of twenty-four months. In this appeal, appellant argued that the
District Court lacked power to revoke his term of supervised release because, at the time
of revocation, that term had expired.1
Because we were unable to determine from the record and the briefs of the parties
whether supervised release had expired and, if so, when, counsel were directed to provide
at oral argument “the dates, if any, from February 5, 1999 to August 19, 2003 during
which Marrero was incarcerated and whether such period or periods of incarceration, if

-- 2 of 3 --

any, were ‘in connection with a conviction for a Federal, State or local crime.’ See 18
U.S.C. § 3624(e).”
At oral argument, appellant’s counsel advised the Court, and counsel for the
United States did not dispute, that appellant had been incarcerated “in connection with a
Federal, State or local offense” from May 12, 2001 to August 19, 2003, the date of the
revocation hearing. It was, therefore, apparent that the three year term of supervised
release which had been imposed on February 5, 1999 had not expired when that term was
revoked because incarceration tolls a period of supervised release. The order of the
District Court, entered on August 22, 2003, will, therefore, be affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --