Rico v. United States · ¶31

The government urges us to consider Anderson v. Corall, 263 U. S. 193 (1923). That case, the government insists, illustrates how background common-law principles should inform our understanding of the Act. In Corall, a federal court sentenced the defendant to prison, followed by a term of parole, a form of conditional release different from (but not wholly unlike) supervised release. Id., at 193–194. While the defendant was on parole, he committed a new state crime and was sentenced to state prison. Id., at 194. After his release, federal authorities revoked the defendant's parole and returned him to federal prison. Id., at 194–195. The defendant protested that his federal parole clock had expired while he was in state prison, but we disagreed. Instead, applying background common-law principles, we held that the defendant's state confinement stopped the clock on his federal parole much…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.