Syllabus | Opinion [ Souter ] | Concurrence [ Kennedy ] | Concurrence [ Thomas ] | Dissent [ Scalia ] |
---|---|---|---|---|
HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version |
CORNELL JOHNSON, PETITIONER v.
UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
[May 15, 2000]
Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Courts textual analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (1988 ed., Supp. V), and think that analysis sufficient to resolve this case. I agree with Justice Kennedy that the Courts discussions of §3583(a), ante, at 1314, and §3583(e)(2), ante, at 18, are unnecessary to the result. I would not rely, as the Court (ante, at 1415) and Justice Kennedy (ante, at 2) do, on any apparent congressional purpose supporting the Courts reading of §3583(e)(3). With these observations, I concur in the judgment.