Brett Stuff
Judging the Judges
Term Year: 2018

Jason J. Mont, Petitioner v. United States

Summary Analysis

DATE: 2019-06-03
DOCKET: 17-8995
NAME: Jason J. Mont, Petitioner v. United States

   AUTHOR: Thomas
   JOINING: Roberts, Ginsburg, Alito, Kavanaugh
   GOOD: Yes

OPINION: Dissenting
   AUTHOR: Sotomayor
   JOINING: Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch
   GOOD: No

Case Commentary

"Imprisoned in Connection with a Crime"
It seems like a simple enough phrase. But does this include Terms of Imprisonment served in Connection with a Crime but prior to Conviction of that very same Crime?

I would say yes, as does The Court. But the Dissent disagrees.

In truth, I believe Sotomayor (the Dissent) shoots herself in the foot when she defines imprisonment (as per the following, with all internal quotes and punctuation omitted).
Imprisonment can refer to the sentence that the judge imposes or the time that the prisoner actually serves.
Um, there you go. In the case before us, some of the Time Served was completed prior to the conviction via a Credit for Time Served.

End of Case!

What I find more interesting (than parsing a simple English Phrase, yet again) is that Mont (the criminal in question) was on Supervised Release (call it Parole) during which time he violated his Terms of Release (multiple times) and nothing happened.

Now, I am all for Mercy. But Mercy should be hard-coded into the Statutes. Once written, all of the Statutes should be enforced universally, all of the time.

Anyhow, that tired old rant out of the way. Let me just say, I was surprised at how meaningless Mont's Terms of Release seemed to be.

'And don't break any laws.'
'Gotcha, chief.'

*laws, broken, they were*

'No, seriously. Just don't.'
'Gotcha, chief.'

*so many laws, repeatedly broken, they were*

'This is your last chance.'
'Gotcha, chief.'

'And one final thing, stop calling me chief.'
'Sure thing, chief.'

Being a Career Drug Dealer (in my ever so humble opinion) Mont got:

Now, I am not a lawyer (nor do I pretend to be one, not even on TV). And one of the reasons for that (beyond not having a Legal Degree) is that simple things (painfully simple things) often trip me up.

Concurrently: at the same time

Consequently: one after the other

While reading this case (for the longest time), I confused those two words (along with other words, perhaps). And as such, could not figure out the fuss, as 42 Months to Run Concurrently with another (longer) sentence is nothing.

But the sentences were not to run Concurrently; but rather, Consequently.

In happier news, I understand what Tolling means. It's a pushing back of a time limit.

And this case revolves around whether Mont's Term of Supervised Release is Tolled during (a presumably justified) Imprisonment for another offence.

It is.

And that's the case.

I'll just mention one last time that I liked what Sotomayor had to say... until she started quoting stuff. At which point it was clear to me (but not her and three other Justices, so maybe I need my vision checked) that Thomas was right. She was wrong. And there really wasn't all that much to this case.

Judging the Judges

Next Entry


Without Tolling (in many instances), it would be possible to Run Out the Clock.

So, like, in Football, whenever the Clock is Stopped, it's sort of like Tolling, as the Time Left Remaining to Play does not move forward.

Of course, I know even less about Football than I do The Law, so I probably should have used a different example.

Still, what is done is done.

And now (and in regards to the page), all there is left to do is Run Out the Clock.


And Exit!

© copyright 2019 Brett Paufler
A Personal Opinion/Editorial