Setser v. United States (10-7387)

argument 10-7387

Setser v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What statutory question does Setzer v. United States raise about consecutive federal sentences?

John G. Roberts 0:02

We'll hear argument first this morning in case ten seven three eight seven, Setzer versus United States. Mr Hawkins.

Unknown 0:09

Mr. Chief Justice may please the court. This case concerns whether in passing the S Sentencing Reform Act of nineteen eighty four, Congress granted to the Federal District Court the authority to order its federal sentence to run consecutively to a uh a a sentence which has yet to be imposed and may never come to fruition. The text of thirty-five eighty-four, its structure, and its history all point to the conclusion that the court lacks this power. We believe the question should start and end with the statute's text. When a defendant receives multiple terms of imprisonment, they must bear one of three relationships to each other. Either one is imposed before the other, the other is imposed before the one, or they are imposed at the same time.

Elena Kagan 0:54

um on its face. Does Mr Setzer Fit into it.

Elena Kagan 1:05

at different times run consecutively. What's unclear about those words?

Unknown 1:11

Your Honor, uh th that term can only The

Elena Kagan 1:14

words are not unclear. We have to do the statutory interpretation that you want.

Unknown 1:19

Your Your Honor, the the words can only be read in the context of the first of the first sentence. Um we believe that the third sentence only applies where the court had the authority to actually order this but remained silent.

Elena Kagan 1:33

Some fairly respected jurists below um Judge Easterbrook and Judge Fletcher, two different circuits, have read it as taking care of all those situations that the other two sentences don't cover. Why is that an irrational reading?

Unknown 1:53

Your Honor, I I think it has to be read uh th the the third sentence has to be read in its place within the the statute. And I think that the third sentence refers exclusively to circumstances where the defendant uh was already serving another term of imprisonment at the time of the Federal sentencing. I think we know this because the parallel structure of thirty five eighty four A. Um it it's

Elena Kagan 2:14

that assumes the answer is what I'm saying to you. If you give each sentence its plain meaning. Why is why is Mr. Setzer not within the plain meaning of the third? He He had multiple terms of imprisonment. imposed at different times.

Unknown 2:32

Yes, but those terms of imprisonment uh weren't uh there was no term of imprisonment imposed at the time of his federal sentencing. He was not serving an undischarged term of imprisonment and we believe that the natural flow of the statute, the default rule only comes in place um if the court has the power to sentence uh under the first sentence. You would say that at the time of sentencing there were no multiple terms of imprisonment. Is that your point? That is correct, Your Honor. That at the time of the federal sentencing, Mr Mr. Sutzer was not subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment. What difference does it make for him? Now he he served his state time He came over to serve his federal sentence.

Unknown 3:15

He didn't get credit for the two and a half years he s spent in In uh state but what is the consequence? How much What is the difference? uh to the defendant in this case. Your Honor, we we believe that the order what the order did was bind the court. Um uh I'm sorry, the the the order bound the Bureau of Prisons. And so what it does, what happens is Mr. Setzer is not able um to petition the Bureau of Prisons to uh allow that sentence to begin running from the time of the federal sentencing. And so the difference, Your Honor, uh is one year, six months, and twenty-three days that we believe. that he is entitled to credit for. Or you could seek it. I mean what would in he has a the state time and he two and a half years and then he has his federal sentence.

Unknown 4:10

Why would you be entitled to any credit? Because uh because Your Honor, uh uh the the court uh ordered that the the the federal sentence to run concurrently to that ten year sentence that he received um in state court. And so we believe he is entitled to credit for that for that sentence.

Samuel A. Alito 4:30

In situations like this, somebody is going to have to make the decision whether the Federal sentence and the subsequently imposed State sentence run concurrently or consec consecutively.