74 So.3d 25 (Ala.2011). See also State v. Coleman, 175 Wash.App. 1024 (2013) (not reported in P.3d) (referring to an inmate’s “confinement on work release”); Hale v. State, 992 N.E.2d 848, 859 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (referring to an inmate’s “two-year term of confinement in the work release program”); State v. Bogert, [Ms. No.2011-253, Feb. 22, 2013] — A.3d - (Vt.2013) (referring to “confinement” in a “work release program”); Myers v. Richie, [Ms. No. 2:13cv638-TMH, Nov. 1, 2013] — F.Supp.2d - (M.D.Ala.2013) (referring to an inmate’s “confinement” at a “work release center”); 10 Ill. Comp. Statutes § 5/3-5 (defining “confinement” for purposes of the ability to vote as including inmates participating in work-release programs); United States v. Timbrook, 290 F.3d 957, 959 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); and United States v. Miller, 547 F.3d 1207,
holding that the district courts failure to explain the effect of supervised release was harmless where the maximum term of incarceration under the actual sentence of imprisonment and supervised release less than six years as well as his worstcase scenario less than nine years was less than the maximum term of incarceration twenty years al lowed by law holding that work release qualified as incarceration holding that state work release regulation was not an ex post facto law holding a sentence is not limited to period of incarceration holding that inclusion of a general release was merely a suggestion of how to terminate the lawsuit and that acceptance was not qualified on use of the specific release and party was willing to discuss the terms of a release