Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01913/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01913-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Andre Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 16-1913

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ANDRE WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 95 CR 242-6 — Robert W. Gettleman, Judge.

____________________

SUBMITTED AUGUST 30, 2016 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 6, 2016*

____________________

Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and POSNER and EASTERBROOK,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Andre Williams, who has 14 years left to 

serve in prison (his release is scheduled for 2030, if he earns 

and retains all good-time credits), asked the district court to 

revise some conditions that will apply to supervised release 

 

* The court initially resolved this appeal by nonprecedential order. 

The order is being reissued as an opinion.

Case: 16-1913 Document: 12 Filed: 09/14/2016 Pages: 2
2 No. 16-1913

once his time in prison ends. The district court declined, 

deeming the application premature.

District judges have the authority to revise terms of supervised release “at any time” (18 U.S.C. §3583(e)(2)). Williams maintains that, because a judge may act at any time, 

the judge must act whenever requested to do so. The district 

judge thought otherwise, observing that, in the 14 years between now and Williams’s scheduled release, “he may have 

totally other issues that he might want to deal with regarding supervised release.” The judge might have added that 

the governing law (including controlling decisions of this 

court) may change between now and then.

If the district judge had proposed to defer decision until 

Williams was actually out of prison, we would be inclined to 

think that a mistake. Williams is entitled to know, before he 

leaves prison, what terms and conditions govern his supervised release. We would be reluctant to allow a judge to 

deem premature a request in the final year or two of imprisonment. But treating a request 14 years in advance as premature, and requiring the prisoner to make all potential arguments at one time in the year or so before release, is a sound 

exercise of discretion.

On that understanding, the judgment is affirmed.

Case: 16-1913 Document: 12 Filed: 09/14/2016 Pages: 2