Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01913/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01913-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Andre Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

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

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 30, 2016*

Decided September 6, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

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.

Order

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 once 

 *

 This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). 

After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

Case: 16-1913 Document: 10 Filed: 09/06/2016 Pages: 2
No. 16-1913 Page 2

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, then we would be inclined to think the decision 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: 10 Filed: 09/06/2016 Pages: 2