United States v. Merlino, No. 14-4341 (3d Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseMerlino, reputed former head of the Philadelphia mob, began a three-year term of supervised release in September 2011. In June 2014, law enforcement observed Merlino at a Boca Raton cigar bar with convicted felons, including Ciancaglini, Merlino’s co-defendant. The probation office presented a revocation petition. The court ordered issuance of a summons; a clerk called defense counsel in an effort to secure a mutually agreeable hearing date. Defense counsel, citing work obligations and an upcoming medical procedure, stated that he was unavailable until December. The government indicated that it was “reluctant” to accommodate substantial delay. Defense counsel then informed the clerk that he was available in October. On September 16, the clerk issued notice summoning Merlino for a revocation hearing on October 10. On October 6, defense counsel notified the court that he believed it lacked jurisdiction because no warrant or summons had issued before the expiration of Merlino’s term on September 6. The court concluded that the deadline had been equitably tolled and found that Merlino had violated the terms of his release. The Third Circuit vacated, holding that 18 U.S.C. 3583(i) is jurisdictional, requiring that a warrant or summons issue before the expiration of supervised release in order for a district court to conduct revocation proceedings.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 23, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.