T he H o no rable Art hur J. T arnow , U ni t ed Stat es D i st ri ct Jud ge f o r t he E ast ern D i st ri ct of M i chi gan, s i t t i ng * b y de si gnat i o n. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0793n.06 Case No. 08- 1695 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UN ITED STA TES OF AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,

v. ALLEN J. WALT ANEN, Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE WE STE RN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ge; and TARNOW , District * Judge. ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Chief Ju dge. Allen Waltanen appe als a post-judg ment order denying his motion for a sentenc e reduc tion pur suant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . Be cause his appea l is m oo t in pa rt and unri pe in p art , w e dis mis s th e a pp e a l. I. On Octobe r 7, 2002, the g overnme nt c harg ed Waltanen with attempted posse ssion of more than five grams of c ocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.§§ 8 4 6 an d844(a) . Waltanen waive d ind ic tme nt a

nd e nte re d a g uil ty ple a purs ua nt t o a ple a a g re e me nt. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt fo un d h is b a se offe nse leve l to be 25 and assig ned eig ht criminal history points, making for

a cr iminal hist ory cate g ory of IV.2

On Marc h 11, 2003, t h e d i s t ri ct court sentenced Waltane n to 84 months i n prison — the bottom of the applicable sentenc ing guidelines rang e. He did not appeal the se ntence
. On Fe bruar

y 27, 2008, Walta n en filed a pr o s e motion for sentenc e modification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (providing that, “in the case of a defe ndant who has been sentenc ed to a ter m o f im p r is o n me n t b a s e d o n a s e n te n c in g r an g e th a t h a s s u b s e qu e n tl y b e e n lo wer ed by the SentencingCommi ssion . . . , the court may reduc e the term of imprisonment, af ter c onsideringthe fac tors set fo rt h in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable ”). The court re ceive d a Sentence Modification Report date d Marc h 12, 2008, that calc ulated the amende d base of fense level to be 23 and the n ew sentenc ing r ang e to be 70 - 87 months, should t he cour t decide to g rant the motion and apply

the sentenc e re duction. The proba tion officer

noted that a reduc tion to 70 mont hs would normally b e re commended, but be cause this was less than the time Waltanen had a lrea dy

serve d, a sente nce of

78 mo n t hs would be the standa rd re commendation. B eca use of Waltanen’ s po st- se nte nc ingc on du c t a s d e ta ile d in t he re po rt , h ow e ve r, the pr ob a tio n o ff ic e r d e c lin e d to

rec ommend any

reduc tion. The re port noted that Waltanen wa s involved in two disciplinary incidents while in prison, one, in J uly

2006, for be ing in an unauthorized are a, and the other, in September 2005, for possessing dr ug s o r d ru g ite ms. I n a dd it io n, in Marc h 2 00 8, a ft e r h avin g be e n r e le a se d e arl y fr om p ri so n to enter a six month r esidential drug treatment pr og ram, Waltanan failed to a nswer telephone calls fr om h is p r o b a ti o no f

f ic e r w h il e aw ay

f r o m t h e c e n te r o nanover

n igh t p a s s , an d

w a s f o un d th e n e xt

mor nin g sti ll s me lli ngof

a lc oh ol. Upon

re tur nin g to t he tr e a tme nt c e nte r, he re fu se d to su bmi t to

a b r e a th a l yz e r

t e s to r ur i n e s amp l e , an d

b e c a u s e o f th i s i n c i d e n t , h e w a s r e tur n e d t o c u s t o dy. On May 6, 20 08 , th e dis tr ic t cou

rt de nie d Walt ane n’ s motio n for se nte nc e re du c tio n. I n it s3

opinion an d o r d e r , th e c o urt n o te d

th a t i t h a d

r e v ie w e d

th e mo ti o n , th e Se n te n c e M o d if ication Report, the par

ties’ submission s , and the origina l criminal file. The court ba sed its denial of the mot ion so le ly on Wal tane n’ s p os t- se nte nc e c on du c t, s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e t w o d i s c i p l i n a

ry inc ide nts wh ile he wa s incarc erated and the inc ident while he wa s in residenc e at the dr ug treatment center
. On May 19, 2008, Waltanen filed a timely Notice of Appea l f rom the district court’ s order denying his motion. He ha s serve d his custodial sentence and wa s relea sed fr om prison on October 10, 2008, and is curr ently servinga thre e-year

term of supe rvised re lease

. In h is a pp e a l br ie f, Wal tane n a

rgue s that th e dis tr ic t c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n b y

fa ili ngto consider a ll of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) f actor s in arrivingat its decision to deny his moti on for a

re du c tio n in

se nte nc e , an d by takin g int o ac c ount onl y his po st- c on vic tio n mi sc on du c t and no t hi s po sit ive c on du c t. On Octobe r 28, 2008, t h e go v er n ment filed a motion to dismis s the appe al, ar g uing that be c a us e Wal tane n ha d be e n re le a se d fr om pr iso n, the a pp e a l is moo t. Wal tane n fi le d h is r e sp on se on November

5, 2008, arguing that while h e cannot obtain a sente nce r eduction, he c ould seek a reduc ed ter

m of supervised relea se from the district court, should we f ind that it abused its discretion

and re mand . O n Jan

ua ry 15 , 2 00 9, the mot ion

to d ism iss wa s r e fe rr e d to thi s p ane l. II. The Sentencing Guidelines make it c lear that proce eding s under 18 U .S.C. § 3582(c) “do not constitute a full re sentenc ing of the defe ndant.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10( a)( 3) (2008). The Guide lines also mandate : “[i] n no event may the re duced t er m of imprisonment be less than the te rm of imprisonment the defe ndant has a lrea d y serve d.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10( b)(2) (C). Section 1B 1.10 explains i n the comments sec tion that “[o] nly a term of i mprisonment imposed as part of the orig inal4

sentenc e is authorized to be re duced . . . T his section does not authorize a r eduction in the ter m of imprisonment imposed upon a re vocation of supe rvised re lease .” Id. cmt. 4(A). O nce a defe ndant has ser ved his custodial sentenc e and been relea sed, no meaning ful relief can be g rante d with respec t to the custodial portion of the sente nce. See United States v. Lewis, 166 F. App’ x 193, 194 (6th Cir. 2006). B eca

use Waltanen ha s now serve d his custodial se ntence , and the Guidelines prohibit any reduc tion in either the custodial sente nce a lrea dy completed or

any future i m p ri s o n m ent due to a

revoc ation of super

vised rele ase, Waltane n’s appe al is moot as to any custodial sentenc e. B ut an a pp e a l is no t ent ir e ly moo t “ so lon g a s th e a pp e a l ‘ po te nti a lly

imp lic a te s’ the le ng th of t he appellant’s s upervised r elea se term.” United States v. Mak en, 510 F.3d 654, 656 n.3 ( 6th Cir. 20 07 ) ( c itatio ns omi tte d) . Wa lta ne n, ho we ve r, did

no t mo ve the dis tr ic t c ourt to r e c on sid e r h is supervised r elea se term. In fac t, the only aspec t of his sentence that he challeng ed was the per iod of inca rce ration. Indeed, in his sentenc e modificat i o n memorandum, de fenda nt asked the district

c ourt to “ re se nte nc e him

to a te rm of ‘c re dit fo r tim e se rv e d. ’” He did no t a sk fo r a ny re du c tio n to his te r m o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e ; r a th e r , h e “ s u g g e s t[ e d ] th a t [ th e d is tr ic t c o urt] c o n s id e r a d d ing conditions to his s upervised r elea se.” We have pr eviously

said that “[i] f a pr isoner does not c halleng e the va lidity of the c onviction but rather only challeng es his se ntence or some aspec t of it, the reque st for re lief is moot once the challeng ed portion of the se ntence has expired.” United St ates v. Goldberg, 239 F. App’x 993, 994 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Manogg, 991 F.2 d 7 9 7, 1993 WL 88217 at *1 (6th Cir. Mar. 26 , 1 99 3) ). B a se d s ole ly on thi s r e a so nin g , th e n, the a pp e a l is moo t. III . Wal tane n, ho we ve r, c on te nd s th a t if we we re to c on c lud e that th e dis tic t court e rr e d in5

denying his motion for re duction of sentenc e and r emand this matter to the district cour t, sentencing relief may be available to him under 18 U.S.C. § 1853. Citi ng dicta in United States v. J ohnson, 529 U.S. 53, 60 (2000) (“ equitable c o n s id e r a ti ons of g reat weig ht exi st when an individual is incar cer ated beyond the prope r expiration o f h i s prison term”) , Waltanen ar g ues that his term of supe rvised rele ase c ould ultim ately

be re duced to c ompensate f or a n y sentenc e re duction that he ca nnot now obtain beca

use he ha s completed his custodial s entenc e. Johnson held that the leng th of a defe ndant’s super

vised rele ase te rm may

not be re duced be cause a defe ndant serve d an excess per iod of i ncar cer ation, and while the Court c ited 18 U.S.C. § 3583 when mentioning modification of supervised rele ase as a potential reme dy for an individual who has been held in pr ison bey ond the end of his ter

m, id., the Court expli citly noted that under

Section 3583, the trial cour

t, as it sees fit, may

modify an individual' s conditions of supervised re l ea s e. § 3 5 8 3 (e )( 2 ). Fu rt h erm o re , th e c o urt m ay t erm i n at e a ni n d i v i d u a l 's su pe rv ise d r e le a se ob lig a tio ns “ a t any tim e a ft e r t

he ex pi rat ion

of on e y e ar . . . if

it is satisfied that such ac tion is warra nted by the conduct of the de fenda nt relea sed and the intere st of justice.” § 3583(e )(1)

. Id. F ina lly , th e Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s st a te that: I f t he pr oh ibi tio n in su

bs e c tio n (b )( 2) (C ) re latin g to tim e a lr e a dy se rv e d p re c lud e s a re du c tio n in the te rm

of imp ri so nme nt t o th e e xten t th e c ourt de te rm ine s o the rw ise would have be en appr opriate a s a result of t he amended guideline rang e . . . the cour t may consider a

ny such reduc tion that it was unable to g rant in conne ction with any mot ion fo r e arl y

te rm inatio n o f a

te rm of su pe rv ised rel ease un de r 1 8 U .S. C. 3583(e) (1). How ever , the fa ct that a de fenda nt may have se rved a

longe r term of imprisonment than the court deter mines would have be en appr opriate in viewof the amende d gu i d el i n e r an ge d et erm i n edun d er s u b s ec t i o n(b )( 1 ) s h al l n o t , wi th o u tm o re, provide a basis for e arly

termination of super

vised rele ase. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n4(B ). Waltanen has ne ver a sked the district cour t to modify his term of supervised r elea se under § 1 85 3( e )( 2) . H e ha s n ot ye t se rv e d th e re qu ired on e y ear o f h is s up e rv ise d r e le a se that is a6

pr e re qu isi te fo r h is a sk ingthe dis tr ic t c ourt to co ns ide r ea rl y te rm inatio n of h is s up e rv ise d r e le a se
un de r § 1853 (e )( 1)

. Ev e n if we c ou ld ad dr e ss h is c la im that th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in de nyinghis motion for reduc tion of his c ustodial se ntence , any issue relating to ea rly termination is premature and not ripe f

or our c onsideration. IV. For the fore g oing r easons, we dism iss Wal tane n’ s a pp e a l.