Whether the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy is violated when a defendant is prosecuted and punished for a firearm possession offense after having already been punished for the same conduct through a supervised release revocation hearing

QUESTION PRESENTED: The question presented to this Court is whether Petitioner, Wilson, who suffered a criminal prosecution by way of a supervised release revocation hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) for possession of a firearm in violation of federal law and was required by that statute to be imprisoned for said offense, and who was sentenced to eighteen (18) months imprisonment as a result, can thereafter be separately indicted, prosecuted, and punished for possession of a firearm in violation of federal law for the same occurrence, without running afoul of the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, particularly in light of this Court’s June 26, 2019 ruling in United States v. Haymond, 139 S.Ct. 2369 (2019). More specifically, two sections of the supervised release revocation statute run afoul of that Fifth Amendment protection by prosecuting and punishing for a triggering offense rather than the original offense; 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k). Each of those sections specify triggering offenses and the required punishment for committing one of those triggering offenses (a new criminal prosecution), without considering the original offense. As a result, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) was found to be unconstitutional in 2017 in United States v. Haymond, 869 F.3d 1153 (10" Cir. 2017). This Court granted certiorari in Haymond and held oral argument which resulted in an opinion handed down on June 26, 2019. This Court, after expressing a clear opinion in Haymond’s favor on the constitutional concerns presented by the language and effect of 18 U.S.C. §3583(k) and, in footnote 7, specifically identifying § 3583(g), remanded Haymond in order for the Tenth Circuit to determine: (1) whether the Government preserved their remedial argument of empaneling a jury, and (2) whether empaneling a jury cures § 3583(k)’s 1 After receiving the supplemental briefing order in the Tenth Circuit, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal leaving this issue unresolved. While Haymond was being briefed and argued in this Court, Wilson’s case was being heard in the District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri and thereafter, on interlocutory appeal, in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 2