United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted March 12, 2021*

Decided March 15, 2021 

Before 

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

No. 20-2020 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

PAO HUE YENG XIONG, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

 

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. 

No. 07-CR-112 

William C. Griesbach, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

 Pao Xiong, while still a federal inmate, asked his sentencing judge in the Eastern 

District of Wisconsin to “modify” his supervised release by allowing him to serve it in 

the Northern District of Texas so that he could live with his fiancée and her children. 

The court denied the request and then denied Xiong’s motion to reconsider. Xiong 

timely appealed only the second ruling. Because the court did not abuse its discretion 

by adhering to its original decision, we affirm. 

*

 We have 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 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 
No. 20-2020 Page 2 

A jury in the Eastern District of Wisconsin found Xiong guilty of arson, mail 

fraud, witness tampering, and making a false statement. The district court sentenced 

him to 180 months in prison and three years’ supervised release. One standard 

condition of supervised release prohibited Xiong from leaving the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin without permission of the court or his probation officer. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 5D1.3(c)(3). Xiong appealed but did not challenge any aspect of his sentence, 

including supervised release; we affirmed his conviction. See United States v. Xiong,

595 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2010). 

While in prison, Xiong became engaged to marry a woman who lives in Texas. 

So he began asking to serve his supervised-release term there. In March 2019, the 

probation office in the Northern District of Texas denied Xiong’s request for a transfer 

of supervision but told him it would reconsider if he complied with his release 

conditions for six months. Xiong also sought relief in the Northern District of Texas; 

that court denied his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for lack of jurisdiction. See Xiong v. 

United States, No. 4:20-CV-285-O (N.D. Tex. March 31, 2020). 

Xiong then asked the district court in Wisconsin to modify his release conditions 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 to allow him to live in Texas, arguing that not doing so would 

violate his constitutional right to familial association. The court denied the motion along 

with Xiong’s two requests for an expedited decision. It questioned whether, under 

18 U.S.C. § 3605, it could transfer jurisdiction over Xiong to another judicial district 

before his supervised-release term began. In any event, the court explained, it could 

order the transfer only if the receiving court agreed to it, and it had not. See § 3605. 

Xiong then filed a “Motion to Alter and/or Amend” the ruling, in which he insisted that 

he was entitled to live in Texas with his fiancée and her children. The district court 

summarily denied that motion in a minute entry. Xiong left prison in December 2020. 

On appeal, Xiong contends that the district court erred in denying his original 

motion and his motion to “Alter and/or Amend.” But we limit our review to the denial 

of the second motion. See United States v. Xiong, No. 20-2020 (7th Cir. Aug. 5, 2020). 

Xiong missed the 14-day deadline to file a notice of appeal or move for reconsideration 

of the order denying his transfer request. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A); United States v. 

Rollins, 607 F.3d 500, 502 (7th Cir. 2010). So the “Motion to Alter and/or Amend” did not 

toll the time for taking an appeal from the original ruling, and his notice of appeal is 

timely only with respect to the denial of his second motion. See FED. R. APP.

P. 4(b)(1)(A); United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 650 (7th Cir. 2011). 
No. 20-2020 Page 3 

Xiong argues that his motion was brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2), which 

allows the modification of supervised-release conditions “at any time,” but the district 

court erroneously considered it under the transfer statute, see id. § 3605. We disagree. As 

the district court recognized, Xiong’s request implicated the jurisdiction of the court 

over his person, which, for a supervisee, is initially with the court “imposing a 

sentence.” Id. Only a transfer could divest the Eastern District of Wisconsin of 

jurisdiction. But Xiong was not a person “on supervised release,” id., while he was still 

incarcerated. See 18 U.S.C. § 3424(e); United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 57 (2000). 

Therefore, the district court could not yet transfer jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3605; 

United States v. Bass, 233 F.3d 536, 537 (7th Cir. 2000). Nothing in Xiong’s motion for 

reconsideration (also filed before his release) could have provided grounds for 

revisiting the denial of his request. 

Even if we reviewed Xiong’s motion under the auspices of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2), 

we would not conclude that it was an abuse of discretion not to reconsider modifying 

his conditions of supervised release to permit him to live outside of Wisconsin. 

See United States v. Hook, 471 F.3d 766, 770 (7th Cir. 2006). Although the court denied 

reconsideration in summary fashion, we presume that it stood on its original reasoning 

because Xiong’s motion for reconsideration was nearly identical to his original motion. 

See Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, 487 F.3d 506, 512 (7th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. 

Nonahal, 338 F.3d 668, 670–71 (7th Cir. 2003) (affirming denial of request to move while 

on supervised release, though district court gave no explanation for its denial of 

original motion or motion for reconsideration). In denying the original modification 

motion, the court explained that allowing Xiong to live in Texas would be inappropriate 

because his only tie there was his fiancée, with whom he began a relationship while he 

was in prison. In contrast, Xiong grew up and had family in Wisconsin. The court also 

noted that Xiong’s conviction for possessing contraband while incarcerated, 

see 18 U.S.C. § 1791, made him a “poor candidate” for a transfer. 

Xiong also asserts that the court violated his right to family integrity when it 

refused his request to serve his supervised-release term in Texas. But he has not shown 

that the conditions of release prohibiting him from leaving Eastern District of Wisconsin 

interferes with any right he may have to associate with his fiancée or her children. 

See United States v. Lee, 950 F.3d 439, 448–49 (7th Cir. 2020). Xiong can live with his 

fiancée in Wisconsin, visit Texas with the permission of the court or his probation 

officer, and seek a transfer of supervision at an appropriate time. 

AFFIRMED