Costa v. United States

Background

Petitioner Costa was convicted on multiple drug trafficking charges and received a 60-year prison sentence. The trial judge ordered that Costa would not be eligible for parole until he served one-third of that sentence—20 years. Costa argued that a federal parole statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4205, limited parole eligibility to 10 years for long or life sentences, but the appeals court disagreed and upheld the 20-year waiting period.

Reasoning

The key question the dissent highlights is whether the sentencing judge may set parole eligibility at up to one-third of a prison term despite a separate provision that some courts read as imposing a 10-year maximum. The Eleventh Circuit relied on § 4205(b)(1), which allows a judge to designate a minimum term for parole eligibility not to exceed one-third of the sentence. Several other federal appeals courts have interpreted those parts of the law in directly conflicting ways, with some allowing one-third rules to override the 10-year cap and others reading the law to limit eligibility to 10 years.

Real world impact

Although the statute was repealed for future crimes effective November 1, 1987, it still applies to offenses committed before that date, so the question continues to affect people sentenced under the old law. Because the Supreme Court declined to take the case, the split among appeals courts remains, and outcomes about how long prisoners must wait for parole will depend on which appeals court controls the case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justice O’Connor, dissented from the denial of review and would have granted review to resolve the conflict among the circuits about how § 4205 should be read.