Extension of §3C1.3 Enhancement to Offenses Committed While on Supervised Release Pending Proceedings

Introduction

United States v. Nellis (2d Cir. May 15, 2025) addresses whether the Sentencing Guidelines’ obstruction-of-justice enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 3C1.3), which is triggered by 18 U.S.C. § 3147 when a defendant commits an offense while released pending proceedings, applies to crimes committed while on supervised release rather than traditional pretrial release.

Background: Romell Nellis, previously convicted of cocaine base distribution, violated his supervised release and was placed on bond pending revocation proceedings. While on that bond, he committed four bank robberies, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 176 months’ imprisonment plus supervised release and restitution. The district court applied a three-level § 3C1.3 enhancement, and Nellis appealed.

Key Issues:

Does § 3C1.3 apply when the underlying “release” is due to a supervised‐release violation?
Was application of the enhancement barred by Apprendi v. New Jersey or by an absence of adequate notice?

Parties: United States (Appellee) v. Romell Nellis (Defendant-Appellant).

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit unanimously affirmed. The panel held that:

Section 3C1.3 incorporates 18 U.S.C. § 3147’s “offense-committed-while-released” enhancement, and § 3147 applies when the defendant is released in connection with any federal offense, including a supervised-release violation.
Nellis’s bank robberies, committed while on bond for a supervised-release violation, triggered the three-level § 3C1.3 enhancement.
His challenges under Apprendi (failure to charge the enhancement in the indictment and lack of jury fact-finding) and for lack of notice fail on plain-error review, because he signed a release order warning him of § 3147 penalties and admitted the relevant facts.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.3 (Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice): Enhances offense level by three if § 3147 applies.
18 U.S.C. § 3147: Imposes up to ten extra years for offenses committed while on pretrial release.
§ 3156(a)(2): Defines “offense” to include any federal crime.
United States v. Esteras, 102 F.4th 98 (2d Cir. 2024): De novo review of preserved guideline‐enhancement challenges.
Villiers v. Decker, 31 F.4th 825 (2d Cir. 2022): Violation of supervised release is treated as part of the original offense.
United States v. Confredo, 528 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008): Apprendi applies to § 3147-triggered enhancements; a plea admitting the relevant fact satisfies jury‐finding requirements when the record is clear.
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000): Any fact increasing the maximum penalty must be charged, submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt (except prior convictions).
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002): Harmless-error approach to Apprendi-type omissions from the indictment when the grand jury would inevitably have found the fact.
United States v. Davis, 114 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 1997): Signing a release form advising of § 3147 penalties satisfies notice requirements.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. Applicability of § 3C1.3
Section 3C1.3 mandates a three-level enhancement if § 3147 applies. Section 3147(1) refers broadly to any “offense committed while released under [Chapter 207].” Chapter 207 covers all forms of pre-sentence and pre-trial release, including supervised-release revocation proceedings (Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(6)). The Guidelines commentary clarifies that the enhancement applies to offenses committed while released “in connection with another federal offense,” which encompasses supervised-release matters that stem from the original conviction. Thus, Nellis’s bank robberies while on bond for his supervised‐release violation fell squarely under § 3147 and § 3C1.3.

b. Standard of Review
The court reviewed statutory‐interpretation issues de novo (Esteras) and applied plain‐error review to unpreserved Apprendi and notice objections (Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010)).

c. Apprendi and Jury-Finding
Apprendi requires that any fact increasing a sentence beyond the statutory maximum be charged and jury-found beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the enhancement raised the potential maximum under § 3147. But Nellis’s guilty plea and the uncontroverted public record established that he was on bond at the time of the robberies. Under Confredo and Cotton, those admissions obviate any Apprendi violation, or render any error harmless.

d. Notice
While the government customarily gives formal notice of its intent to seek a § 3C1.3 enhancement, the release order that Nellis signed explicitly warned him that committing an offense while released would carry additional penalties under § 3147. Per Davis, that written acknowledgment in a binding release form suffices to bar any plain error in notice.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies and broadens the reach of the obstruction-of-justice enhancement:

It confirms that supervised-release revocation proceedings trigger the same heightened penalties as traditional pretrial release under § 3147 and § 3C1.3.
It streamlines sentencing by treating supervised-release violations as part of the original offense for enhancement purposes, reducing uncertainty over which “release” concepts apply.
It reinforces that a defendant’s plea or signing of a release order can satisfy Apprendi’s jury‐finding and notice requirements when the record is clear.

Practitioners should advise clients that any new criminal conduct while on bond for either pretrial or supervised-release matters can carry substantial additional guideline levels and statutory exposure.

Complex Concepts Simplified

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.3: A guideline that adds three offense levels if a defendant commits a crime while on certain releases.
18 U.S.C. § 3147: A statute imposing up to ten more years if an offender commits a felony while released under federal pretrial or pre-sentence release rules.
Supervised Release Violation: When a person on supervised release (post-prison supervision) fails to comply, they can be detained, and any new crimes during that period are treated as committed “while released.”
Apprendi Doctrine: Requires that any fact increasing a criminal penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, except prior convictions.
Plain-Error Review: The standard for unpreserved claims on appeal, requiring a clear, obvious error that affects substantial rights and the integrity of judicial proceedings.

Conclusion

United States v. Nellis confirms that the § 3C1.3 enhancement, via 18 U.S.C. § 3147, applies when a defendant offends while on bond for a supervised-release violation. The Second Circuit’s reasoning resolves statutory ambiguities, aligns supervised release with other forms of pre-sentence release, and underscores that admissions in plea allocutions and signed release orders satisfy Apprendi and notice requirements. This precedent will guide sentencing courts and defense counsel in assessing the risks of new criminal acts during any period of federal supervision or release.