Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01803/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01803-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory Hayes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 21, 2016*

Decided December 22, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

No. 16‐1803

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

GREGORY HAYES,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 95‐CR‐135

Rudolph T. Randa,

Judge.

O R D E R

With about 3 years left on his 26‐year federal prison sentence, Gregory Hayes

asked the district court to modify the conditions of his impending supervised‐release

                                                 

* We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without oral argument because

the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral

argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 16-1803 Document: 17 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pages: 3
No. 16‐1803    Page 2

term. The court treated his request as a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2),1 denied it

as premature, and invited him to refile three months before his release date. We affirm.   

In his motion Hayes argued that the sentencing judge (1) failed to justify the

conditions using the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and (2) imposed “many” conditions

that were vague or overbroad. He pointed to only one as vague—the condition that

barred him from associating or communicating with any member, associate member, or

prospective member of a gang. The district court denied the motion without prejudice.

Hayes’s failure‐to‐justify argument, the court concluded, was not authorized by

§ 3583(e)(2) because it was a late challenge based on an asserted procedural error from

the time of sentencing. As for his vagueness argument, the district court acknowledged

that the term “associating” needed clarification after United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828

(7th Cir. 2015), but pointed out that Hayes still faced three years in prison and didn’t

specify the other conditions that he challenged. The court invited him to refile the

motion three months before his release date.

On appeal Hayes contends that a full resentencing is necessary because several of

his conditions are overly vague. But correcting vague conditions under § 3583(e)(2)

would require only remand for clarification. See United States v. Bickart, 825 F.3d 832,

842 (7th Cir. 2016); United States v. Purham, 795 F.3d 761, 768 (7th Cir. 2015).

He also contends that refusing to “correct” the conditions upon his motion was

error because § 3583(e)(2) allows district judges to modify conditions of release at any

time. We disagree. Although judges have authority to adjust supervised‐release

conditions at any time, this does not mean that a judge must revise them whenever

prisoners ask. United States v. Williams, 840 F.3d 865, 865 (7th Cir. 2016) (upholding

determination that modification request 14 years before release was premature).

Governing law and circumstances sometimes change during incarceration, so judges

may require prisoners to make challenges all at once “in the year or so before

release.” See id.; United States v. Myers, 426 F.3d 117, 129–30 (2d Cir. 2005); see also

United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705, 717 (7th Cir. 2014) (noting that “best practices”

                                                 

1 Section 3583(e)(2) provides that courts may, after considering certain factors in

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), “modify, reduce, or enlarge the conditions of supervised release, at

any time prior to the expiration or termination of the term of supervised release,

pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the

modification of probation and the provisions applicable to the initial setting of the terms

and conditions of post‐release supervision.”   

Case: 16-1803 Document: 17 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pages: 3
No. 16‐1803    Page 3

commend considering modifications on the “eve” of release). In this case Hayes

explained some but not all of his substantive challenges and still had three years to

serve in prison. The district court acted within its discretion by denying his request and

allowing him to refile a single motion to be resolved before his release. And to the

extent that Hayes now challenges other conditions on vagueness grounds, those

arguments are similarly premature.   

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-1803 Document: 17 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pages: 3