The United States Supreme Court case of United States v. George Labonte, Alfred Lawrence Hunnewell, and Stephen Dyer in 1996 revolved around the interpretation of a federal sentencing guideline that provides for an increase in sentence if the defendant "was previously sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding one year." The defendants argued that this should only apply to sentences actually served rather than those imposed. However, the court ruled against them with Justice O'Connor delivering the opinion. She stated that it was clear from both statutory language and legislative history that Congress intended for all prior sentences over one year to be considered regardless of time served or suspended portions. Therefore, any previous sentence exceeding one year could result in increased penalties under federal law even if part or all of it was suspended.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. George Labonte, Alfred Lawrence Hunnewell, and Stephen Dyer, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of 28 U.S.C §994(h) was incorrect. She contended that this law should not be interpreted to require sentencing commissions to assign higher offense levels to career offenders with prior convictions than those without such records. Instead, she believed it should only mandate a sentence at or near the statutory maximum for these individuals. The majority’s reading of “maximum term authorized” as referring to any defendant convicted under a statute rather than specifically career criminals was seen by her as an overreach beyond Congressional intent. Furthermore, she criticized their approach as ignoring fundamental principles of proportionality in punishment and potentially leading to unjust results where non-violent drug offenders could face harsher sentences than violent criminals simply due to past convictions.