# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 35 41

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Iv or y Mo sb y , als o k no wn as Rafi q Zar eef M uh ay m in

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 17, 2 01 3

Fil ed : J un e 2 8, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Iv or y Mo sb y was co nv ic te d of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of am m un it io n an d

se nt en ced to fif

te en y ears of im

pr is on m en t an d fiv e y ears of su p e r vi se d rel eas e.

Alt ho ug h Mo sb y ’s pr is on se nt en ce en de d in Sep te m be r 20 07

, he rem ai ne d in fed eral

cu st od y fo r so m e th ree ad di ti on al y ears awai ti ng a he ari ng in hi s ci vi l co m m it m en t

pr oc eed in g. Mo sb y ’s ci vi l co m m it men t pr oc eed in g was la te r di sm is se d, an d inNov em

be r 20 10 he was rel eas ed un de r su pe rv is io n. In Octo be r 20 12 Mo sb y m ov ed

fo r te rm in at io n of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e, arg ui ng th at hi s fiv e y ear te rm of su pe rv is ed

r e le as e ha d al read y ex pi red as a m at te r of la w, or al te rn at iv el y th at eq u i t a b l e

co ns id erat io ns fav or ed te rm in at io n. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s m ot io n, an d Mo sb y 1

ap pe al s. We affir m

.

I.

Mo sb y ha s a le ng th y cri m in al reco rd

. As a juv en il e he was arre st ed on se ve ral

2

oc cas io ns fo r of

fen se s su ch as gr an d la rcen y

, pe tt y la rcen y

, br eak in g an d en te rin g,

an d th eft of pr op ert y . In 19 79 , when he was 1 8 years ol d, Mo sb y was co nv ic te d of

bu rg la riz in g th ree di ffer en t bu si ne ss es

. Less th an a m on th aft er be in g rel eas ed on

pa ro le

, Mo sb y was arre st ed fo r th ree m or e bu rg la rie s. Dur in g th e ne xt th ree y ears he

was al so co nv ic te d of se co nd de gr ee ba tt ery, tw o a s sa ul ts

, th eft

, at te m pt ed es cap e,

an d fo ur di so rd erl y co nd uc t ch arg es

. The n in 19 85 Mo sb y was co nv ic te d o f f i rs t

de gr ee at te m

pt ed m ur de r a n d f

i r s t de gr ee cri m in al se xu al as sa ul t fo r rap in g a

Uni ve rs it y of Mi nn es ot a gr ad ua te st ud en t whi le be at in g he r wit h a pi pe

, cau si ng bo th

sh or t an d l on g t erm

in juri es

.

In th e su m

m er of 19 94

, le ss th an a y ear aft er be in g rel eas ed on pa ro le fo ll owi ng

hi s at te m pt ed m ur d e r a n d s e xu al as sa ul t co nv ic ti on s, Mo sb y was li nk ed to th e

bu r gl ary of a su bu rb an Mi nn eap ol is bu si ne ss

. Law en fo rcem en t of fic ers se arch ed

Mo sb y ’s ho us e an d fo un d 89 ro un ds of .44 m ag nu m am m un it io n. Alt ho ug h Mo sb y

was so on lo cat ed dr iv in g a st ol en v e h i c l e

, he refu se d to st op an d in st ead le d po li ce

The Hon or ab le Mi ch ael J. Dav is

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1

th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.

A lth ough Mos by lega ll y ch an ge d hi s na m e to Rafi q Zaree f Mu ha y m in in 1993

, 2

ou r pr io r cas es an d th e pa rti es he re refe r t o h i m by hi s or ig in al na m e. Fo r

co ns is te nc y , we do so as we ll

.

-2

-on a hi gh sp eed ch as e. At on e po in t Mo sb y ai m ed a lo ad ed ha nd he ld cro ss bo w at an

of fic er in pu rs ui t. Mo sb y was ev en tu al ly app reh en de d, an d t he cro ss bo w and a .22

cal ib er st art er pi st ol were fo un d in hi s ve hi cl e. Mo sb y was ch arg ed in st at e co ur t wit h

be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm b as ed on th e st art er pi st ol fo un d in hi s

ve hi cl e.

Tha t st at e ch arg e was dr op pe d aft er Mo sb y was in di ct ed by a fed eral gr an d jury

fo r be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of am m un it io n ba se d on th e .44 m ag nu m am m un it io n

fo un d in hi s h ou se . Fol lo win g a th ree da y tri al , t he jury co nv ic te d hi m of vi ol at in g

18 U.S

. C

. § § 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( e)(1 ). Mo sb y m ov ed fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

,

arg ui ng th at th e go ve rn m en t ha d fai le d to pr ov e th at th e am m un it io n cart rid ge s were

“i n or affe ct in g” in te rs ta te co m m erce be cau se th ey ha d be en m an uf act ur ed an d

po ss es se d on ly wit hi n Mi nn es ot a. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Mo sb y ’s m ot io n, bu t we

rev ers ed

, Uni te d St at es v. Mo sb y

, 60 F.3 d 45 4, 45 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ), ho ld in g th at th e

in te rs ta t e r eq ui rem en t of § 92 2( g) (1 ) ha d be en sa ti sf ie d be cau se “ [a]t le as t so m e of

th e[] co m po ne nt s” of th e am m

un it io n ha d be en m an uf

act ur ed in ot he r st at es

. Id

. On

rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at Mo sb y was su bjec t to a fif te en y ear

m an da to ry m in im

um ba se d on hi s cri m in al hi st or y an d se nt en ced hi m to fif te en y ears

of im pr is on m en t an d fiv e y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Mo sb y ap pe al ed hi s co nv ic ti on

on va rio us gr ou nd s, an d we affi rm ed

. Uni te d St at es v. Mo sb y

, 10 1 F.3 d 12 78

, 12 79

(8 th Cir . 19 96 ).

Sh or tl y be fo re Mo sb y ’s pr is on s en te nc e en de d on Sep te m be r 14

, 20 07

, th e

Uni te d St at es fil ed an 18 U.S.C. § 42 48 cert ifi cat e in th e East ern Dis tri ct of Nor th

Caro li na whe re Mo sb y was in cu st od y

. The cert ifi cat e so ug ht to ha ve Mo sb y ci vi ll y

co m m it te d as a se xu al ly da ng ero us pe rs on

, an d hi s rel eas e fro m fed eral cu st od y was

st ay ed pe nd in g it s res ol ut io n. See 18 U.S.C. § 42 48 (a). All su ch pr oc eed in gs in th e

East ern Dis tri ct of Nor th Caro li na were he ld in ab ey an ce in earl y 20 08 pe nd in g a

rev ie w of th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of § 42 48

. Mo sb y th en fil ed a pe ti ti on fo r writ of erro r

co ram no bi s in th e Dis tri ct of Mi nn es ot a. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Mo sb y ’s pe ti ti on

,

-3

-an d we su m

m ari ly affi rm ed

. Uni te d St at es v. Mo sb y

, No. 08 -3 61 8 (8 th Ci r. Aug

. 27

,

2 0 0 9 )

. The reaf

te r, th e Su pr em e Co ur t co nc lu de d th at 18 U.S.C. § 42 48 is a

co ns ti tu ti on al ex erci se of co ng res s i o n a l p owe r un de r th e Neces sa ry an d Pro pe r

Cl au se . Uni te d S ta te s v . Com st oc k, 1 30 S. Ct. 1 94 9, 1 96 5 (2 01 0)

.

In Octo be r 20 10

, be f

or e an y ru li ng by th e di st ric t co ur t on Mo sb y ’s § 42 48

co m m it m en t pr oc eed in g, he an d th e Uni te d St at es ag reed to a joi nt st ip ul at io n. The

pr os ecu ti on a g r e e d t o di sm is s Mo sb y ’s § 42 48 cas e an d rel eas e hi m fro m cu st od y

wit hi n 24 ho ur s. Mo sb y in tu rn ag reed to di sm is s th re e h a b e a s a c t i on s th at he ha d

fil ed whi le in cu st od y

. The joi nt st ip ul at io n st at ed th at Mo sb y ’s te rm of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e wou ld “ be de em ed to ha ve be gu n as of th e da te of hi s a c t u a l rel eas e fro m

cu st od y .” On Octo be r 15

, 20 10 Mo sb y was rel eas ed fro m Bu reau of Pri so ns (BOP)

cu st od y to th e Uni te d St at es Mar sh al s Serv ic e, an d on Nov em be r 15

, 20 10 he was

rel eas ed to a ha lfwa y

ho us e in Mi nn es ot a.

Dur in g hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e Mo sb y ’s tra ns it io n in to th e co m m un it y ha s be en

la rg el y po si ti ve

. He co m

pl et ed a job tra in in g pr og ram at Goo dwi ll East er Seal s in St

.

Pau l an d earn ed fo rk li ft an d co m pu te r wor k cert ifi cat es

. Mo sb y ha s al so wor ke d fo r

th e Mi nn es ot a Twin s as a co nc es si on ai re at Targ et Fi el d, fo r th e Goo d w i l l Ea s t er

Seal s, an d fo r a lo cal was te co m pa n y. H e w a s on e of th e Goo dwi ll East er Seal s

pa rti ci pa nt s of th e ye a r 20 11 an d was feat ur ed in a vi de o at it s 20 12 award s

cere m on y

. Mo sb y ha s bee n abl e to fin d st ab le ho us in g, and he ha s no t vi ol at ed an y

co nd it io ns of hi s su pe rv is ed rel e a s e o r fai le d an y dr ug te st

. At th e req ue st of hi s

pr ob at io n of

fic er Mo sb y ha s al so sp ok en to at ris k juv en il es in Mi nn eap ol is ab ou t hi s

ex pe rie nc e in th e cri m in al jus ti ce s y st em

.

In Octo be r 20 12 Mo sb y m ov ed t he di st ric t co ur t fo r te rm in at io n of hi s

su p e r v i s e d rel eas e. He arg ue d th at hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e ha d co m m en ced in

Sep te m be r 20 07 a s a m at te r of la w an d th at hi s fiv e y ear te rm ha d th us en de d in

Sep te m be r 20 12

. Mo sb y al te rn at iv el y cl ai m ed th at eq ui ta bl e co ns id erat io ns fav or ed

-4

-te rm in at io n be cau s e o f h i s “thr ee y ears in ci vi l de te nt io n aft er hi s te rm of

im pr is on m en t was co m

pl et ed ” an d hi s “ po si ti ve tra ns it io n to li fe ou ts id e of

in carc erat io n.” The di st ric t co ur t su m m ari ly de ni ed hi s m ot io n, st at in g in fu ll :

“ Defen da nt fil ed Mo ti on fo r Term in at io n of Su pe rv is ed Rel eas e [Do c. #1 61 ]. IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED th at th e Mo ti on to Req ue st Term in at io n of Su pe rv is ed Rel eas e

is DENIED.” Mos by app eal s.

II.

A.

Mo sb y fir st co nt en ds th at hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e te rm be ga n as a m at te r of la w

in Sep te m be r 20 07

, no twi th st an di ng th e fact th at he rem ai ne d in fed eral cu st od y fo r

so m e th ree y ears th erea fte r. He ba se s th is arg um en t on th e “ in te ra c t i o n a n d 3

op erat io n ” of two st at ut es : 18 U.S.C. § 36 24

, whi ch ap pl ie s to th e rel eas e of

pr is on ers

, an d 18 U.S.C. § 42 48

, whi ch ap pl ie s to th e ci vi l co m m it m en t o f se xu al ly

da ng ero us pe rs on s. W e rev ie w qu es ti on s of st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n de no vo

. Uni te d

St at es v. Ho us e, 50 1 F .3d 92 8, 9 29 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

The la ng ua ge th a t c o n t r o l s th e is su e in th is cas e is fo un d in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3 62 4( e). Tha t s ta tu te pro vi de s i n re le va nt pa rt:

A pr is on er who se se nt en ce in cl ud es a te rm of su pe rv is ed rel e a s e aft er

im pr is on m en t sh al l be rel eas ed by th e Bu reau of Pri so ns to th e

su pe rv is io n of

a pr ob at io n o ffi cer wh o sh al l, du rin g th e te rm im po se d,

su pe rv is e th e pe rs on rel eas ed to th e de gr ee warra nt ed by th e co nd it io ns

Alt ho ug h Mo sb y ’s joi nt st ip ul at io n de em ed hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e to be gi n on 3

“ th e da te of hi s act ua l rel eas e fro m cu st od y ,” th e pa rti es no w ag ree th at he can br in g

th is cl ai m si nc e it in vo lv es th e di st ric t co ur t’s juri sd ic ti on to su pe rv is e hi m un de r 18

U.S.C. § 35 83

. See Uni te d Stat es v. Hacke r, 45 0 F.3d 80 8, 81 4 n.4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ).

-5

-sp eci fie d by th e se nt en ci n g c o u r t. The te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e

co m m en ces on th e da y th e pe rs on is rel eas ed fro m im pr is on ment an d

ru ns co nc ur ren tl y wit h an y Fed eral

, St at e, or lo cal te rm of pr ob at io n or

su pe rv is ed rel eas e or pa ro le for an ot he r of fen se to whi ch th e pe rs on is

su bjec t or be co m es su bjec t du rin g th e te rm of su pe r v is ed rel eas e. A

te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e do es no t run du rin g any pe rio d in whi ch th e

pe rs on is im

pr is on ed in co nn ect io n wit h a co nv ic ti on fo r a Fed eral

, St at e, or lo cal cri m e un le ss th e im pr is on m en t is fo r a pe rio d of le ss th an

30 co ns ecu ti ve da y s.

18 U.S.C. § 36 24 (e) (em ph as is ad de d)

. W e are co nc ern e d h ere wit h th e se co nd

se nt en ce i n § 36 24 (e), wh ic h i s re ferr ed to as t he co m m en cem en t p ro vi si on

.

The re is no di sp ut e th at Mo sb y ’s pr is on te rm en de d on Sep te m be r 14

, 20 07

.

He wou ld or di na ril y ha ve be en free d fro m B O P c u s t o d y at th at ti m e an d hi s

su pe r vi se d rel eas e wou ld ha ve co m m en ced

. Ju st be fo re th e en d of hi s pr is on te rm

,

h o w e v e r

, th e go ve rn m en t fil ed a § 42 48 cert ifi cat e se ek in g to ha ve hi m ci v i l l y

co m m it te d as a se xu al ly da ng ero us pe rs on

. Und er § 42 48

, s uc h a cert ifi cat e “ sh al l

st ay th e rel eas e of th e pe rs on p e n d i n g c o mple ti on of pr oc ed ur es co nt ai ne d in th is

se ct io n.” 18 U.S.C. § 42 48 (a). Mo sb y th eref or e rem ai ne d in fed eral cu st od y

, an d he

was ul ti m at el y

rel eas ed on Nov em

be r 15 , 20 10

.

Mo sb y n on et he le ss arg ue s th at hi s te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e be ga n on

Sep te m be r 14

, 20 07 be ca u s e th e co m m en cem en t pr ov is io n of § 36 24 (e) st at es th at

su pe rv is ed rel eas e be gi ns whe n th e in di vi du al is rel eas ed fro m “ im pr is on m en t.”

Mo sb y st res se s th at fro m Sep te m be r 20 07 on ward he was he ld in ci vi l de te nt io n,

p e nd in g th e ou tc om e of hi s § 42 48 pr oc eed in g, rat he r th an in im pr is o n men t

. H e

as se rts th at ci vi l de te nt io n ne ces sa ril y di ffer s fro m im pr is on m en t be cau se th e fo rm er

is no t pu ni ti ve

, ci ti ng th e Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on s in Kan sa s v. Hen dr ic ks

, 52 1 U.S.

34 6, 36 1– 63 (1 99 7)

, an d Uni te d St at e s v. Co m st oc k, 13 0 S. Ct

. 19 49

, 19 54

, 19 65

(2 0 1 0 ). Mo sb y al so cl ai m s th at th e ru le of le ni ty co un se ls in fav or of ou r ad op ti ng

-6

-hi s po si ti on

. See Uni te d St at es v. San to s, 55 3 U

. S

. 5 07

, 51 4 (2 00 8) (p lu ral it y

op in io n)

.

The Su pr em e Co ur t in te r p r e te d th e ph ras e “ rel eas ed fro m im pr is on m en t” in

§ 36 24 (e) in Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 52 9 U.S. 53 (2 00 0)

. In th at cas e, Jo hn so n ha d

be en se nt en ced to co ns ecu ti ve pr is on te rm s to ta li ng 17 1 m on t h s, to be fo ll owe d by

th ree y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Id

. at 55

. Two of Jo hn so n’s co nv ic ti on s were la te r

va cat ed

, an d he was res en te nc ed to 51 m on th s im pr is on m en t. By th at po in t, ho wev er,

Jo hn so n ha d al read y se rv ed m or e th an 51 m on th s in pr is on

, an d he as ke d to ha ve hi s

su pe r v i s e d r e l eas e te rm red uc ed acco rd in gl y

. Id

. at 55 –5 6. He arg ue d th at hi s

su pe rv is ed rel eas e ha d be gu n as a m at t e r o f l a w whe n hi s la wfu l te rm of

im pr is on m en t h ad ex pi red . Id.

A un an im ou s Su pr em e Co ur t ru le d ag ai ns t Jo hn so n, ho ld in g th at an in di vi du al

is “ rel eas ed fro m im

pr is on m en t” wit hi n th e m ean in g of th e co m m en cem en t pr ov is io n

of § 36 24 (e ) o n l y a f

t e r be in g “ free d fro m co nf in em en t.” Id . a t 57

. In ot he r wor ds

,

“ [s ]upe rv is ed rel eas e do es no t ru n whi le an in di vi du al rem ai ns i n ” fed eral cu st od y

.

Id . The Co ur t ex pl ai ne d t ha t wh il e “ [i]t i s tru e th e pr is on ter m an d t he rel eas e te rm

are rel at ed

, fo r th e la tt er can no t be gi n un ti l th e fo rm er ex pi res

. Tho ug h in te rrel at ed

,

th e te rm s are n ot in te rch an ge ab le

. . . . S up erv is ed rel eas e ha s no st at ut or y fu nc ti on

un ti l co nf in em en t en ds .” Id . at 5 8– 59

.

Und er § 36 24 (e) Mo sb y ’s su pe rv is e d rel eas e “ co m m en ce[d ] on th e da y [h e

was ] rel eas ed fro m im

pr is on m en t,” or as th e Su pr em e Co ur t m ad e cl ear in Jo hn so n,

th e da y th at he was “ free d fr om

co nf in em en t,” 5 29 U.S. at 5 7. Th us

, Mo sb y ’s te rm

of su pe rv is ed rel eas e di d no t be gi n u nt il he was “ free d fro m co nf in em en t” on

Nov em be r 15

, 20 10

. See id

. It wou ld be co nt rary to th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of § 36 24 (e)

an d th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s ho ld in g in Jo hn so n fo r us to ad op t Mo sb y ’s po si ti on th at hi s

te rm of s up erv is ed rel eas e b eg an be fo re h e was rel eas ed fro m fed eral cu st od y

.

-7

-Th is co nc lu si on is co ns is te nt wit h th e di st in ct an d im po rta nt pu rp os e s o f

su pe rv is ed rel eas e. As th e Su pr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d in Jo hn so n: “ Co ng res s in te nd ed

su pe rv is ed rel eas e to as si st in di vi du al s in th ei r tra ns it io n to co m m un it y l i fe.

Su pe rv is ed rel eas e fu lfi ll s r e ha bi li ta ti ve en ds

, di st in ct fro m th os e se rv ed by

in carc erat io n.” 52 9 U.S. at 59

. To st art a te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e wh il e an

in di vi du al is st il l ph y si cal ly co nf in ed by fed eral au th or it ie s wou ld fru st rat e on e of it s

ke y pu rp os es whi c h is to he lp in di vi du al s as th ey tra ns it io n in to th e co m m un it y

.

Und er Mo sb y ’s in te rp ret at io n of § 3 6 2 4 ( e )

, it wou ld ev en be po ss ib le fo r an

in di v i d u a l to be gi n an d en d hi s en ti re te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e wit ho ut le av in g

fed eral cu st od y

. Tha t wou ld be en ti rel y in co ns is te nt wit h th e co ng res si on al pu rp os e.

Fu rth er, in hi s m ot io n be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t an d hi s a p p e l l a te br ie f Mo sb y

ack no wled ge s t he be ne fit he ha s re cei ve d wh il e o n s up erv is ed rel eas e.

Mo sb y arg ue s th at Jo hn so n is no t co nt ro ll in g be cau se th at cas e in vo lv ed a

de fen da nt who se rel eas e was de la y ed du e t o a n erro ne ou s pr is on se nt en ce, whi le

Mo sb y’s r el eas e was st ay ed du e to th e go ve rn m en t’s in it ia ti on of a § 42 48 ci vi l

co m m it m en t pr oc eed in g. Mo sb y co nt en ds th at we sh ou ld ad op t th e po si t i o n ta ke n

by a m ajor it y of a Nin th Ci rcu it pa ne l in Uni te d St at es v. Turn er, 68 9 F.3 d 11 17 (9 th

Ci r. 20 12 ), an d it s co m

pa ni on cas e Uni te d St at es v. Bo la nd er, 48 7 F. App ’x 34 9 (9 th

C i r

. 20 12 ). In th os e cas es

, two de ta in ees ha d co m pl et ed th ei r res pe ct iv e pr is o n

se nt en ces li ke Mo sb y an d were th en ci vi ll y de ta in ed pe nd in g § 42 48 co m m it m en t

pr oc eed in gs

. Turn er, 68 9 F.3 d at 11 19 ; B o l an de r, 48 7 F. App ’x a t 35 0. The pa ne l

m ajor it y di st in gu is he d Jo hn so n a s n o t ha vi ng ad dr es se d “ th e si tu at io n in whi ch a

pe rs on who ha s co m

pl et ed a pr is on se nt en ce is th en pl aced in ci vi l de te nt io n.”

Turn er, 68 9 F.3 d at 11 24 (em ph as is in or ig in al ). It th en rel ie d on th e th ird se nt en ce

in § 36 24 (e) to co nc lu de th at th e su pe rv is ed rel eas e te rm fo r su ch an in di vi du al

be gi ns whe n hi s pr is on te rm e n d s, id

. at 11 21 –2 5, ci ti ng th e ru le of le ni ty, id

. at

11 2 5

– 2 6

. J ud ge Sm it h ex pl ai ne d in di ss en t th at “ [t]he co m m en cem en t an d to ll in g

pr ov is io ns of 18 U.S.C. § 36 24 (e) are di st in ct ” an d se rv e di ffer en t st at ut or y fu nc ti on s.

Id . at 1 12 6– 27 (Sm it h, J ., di ss en ti ng ). W e ag ree wi th th e d is se nt

.

-8

-Here, th e qu es ti on is whe th er an in di vi du al who ha s be en ci vi ll y de ta in ed un de r

§ 42 48 im m ed ia te ly fo ll owi ng a pr is on te rm ha s co m m en ced hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

See Turn er, 68 9 F.3 d at 11 26 (Sm it h, J., di ss en ti ng ). As th e Su pr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d

in Jo hn so n, th e co m

m en cem en t pr ov is io n fo r su pe rv is e d r e l e as e in § 36 24 (e) is

un am bi gu ou s, an d “ [a]bs en t am bi gu it y

, th e ru le of le ni ty is no t ap pl ic ab le .” 52 9 U.S.

at 59

. No la ng ua ge in § 42 48 go ve rn s th e is su e be fo re us

, no r is an y la ng ua ge in th at

st at ut e am

bi gu ou s.

W e co nc lu de th at u nd er § 36 24 (e) Mo sb y ’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e be ga n as a

m at te r of la w on th e da y th at he was “ free d fro m co nf in em en t.” Jo hn so n, 52 9 U.S.

at 57

. Mo sb y ’s te r m o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e th us be ga n whe n he was rel eas ed fro m

fed eral cu st od y on Nov em be r 15 , 2 01 0, an d it di d no t ex pi re in Sep te m be r 2 0 1 2 as

Mo sb y co nt en ds

.

B.

Mo sb y al te rn at iv el y cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in rej ec tin g his eq ui ta bl e

arg um en ts fo r earl y te rm in at io n of s u p e rv is ed rel eas e. Und er 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e),

a di st ric t co ur t “ m a y, a f t e r c on si de rin g [cer ta in ] fact or s

. . . te rm in at e a te rm of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d di sc ha rg e th e de fen da nt

. . . i f it is sa ti sf ie d t h a t s u c h a ct io n

is warra nt ed by th e co nd uc t of th e de fen da nt rel eas ed an d th e in te res t of jus ti ce.” W e

rev ie w fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n to m od ify th e te rm s

of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, Uni te d St at es v. Dav ie s, 38 0 F.3 d 32 9, 33 2 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 0 4 )

,

in cl ud in g a m ot io n fo r earl y t e rm in at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e un de r § 35 83 (e),

Uni te d St at es v. Hut ch in s, 31 0 F. App ’x 51

, 5 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (u np ub li sh ed pe r

cu ria m ). W e affo rd th e di st ric t co ur t “ br oa d di sc ret io n” in th is area

, Dav ie s, 38 0 F.3 d

at 33 2, reco gn iz in g th at it is in th e be st po si ti on to ev al ua te th e ci rcu m st an ces of each

in di vi du al de fen da nt

.

-9

-In th is cas e th e di st ric t co ur t su m m ari ly de ni ed Mo sb y ’s m ot io n, reject in g hi s

eq ui ta bl e arg um en ts wit ho ut co m m en t. Mo s b y a r g u e s th at earl y te rm in at io n of hi s

su pe rv is ed rel eas e is ap pr op ria te be cau se he sp en t so m e th ree y ears in ci vi l de te nt io n

whe re hi s “ free do m was gr eat ly cu rta il ed .” Mo sb y em ph as iz es hi s su bs eq ue nt

po si ti ve tra ns it io n in to th e co m m un it y

, ha vi ng fo un d st ab le ho us in g an d st ead y wor k

si nc e hi s rel eas e. He al so po in ts t o Mi nn es ot a’s se x of fen de r reg is tra ti on syste m

,

un de r whi ch he wil l be m on it or ed fo r th e res t of hi s li fe. Mo sb y as s e r t s t h a t at

m in im um we sh ou ld rem an d fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to ex pl ai n it s reas on in g fo r de nyin g

hi s m ot io n.

W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n. It ha d pr es id ed

ov er Mo sb y ’s tri al an d was well acq ua in te d wit h hi s ex te ns iv e cri m in al reco rd

, whi ch

in cl ud es co nv ic ti on s fo r vi ol en t o ffen se s s uc h a s fir st de gr ee at te m pt ed m ur de r an d

fir st de gr ee sex ua l ass au lt

. The di st ric t cou rt was aware of th e ti m e th at Mo sb y ha d

be en de ta in ed rel at ed to hi s § 42 48 pr oc eed in g, hi s su bs eq ue nt po si ti ve tra ns it io n to

li fe ou ts id e of cu st od y

, an d hi s st at us as a se x of fen de r su bjec ti ng h i m t o s t at e

m on it or in g. Nei th er 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e) no r rel ev an t case la w req ui red th e d is tri ct

co ur t to ex pl ai n it s de ni al of earl y te rm in at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. W e se e no ab us e

of di sc ret io n i n i ts su m

m ary de ni al of M os by’ s m ot io n.

III.

Acco rd in gl y

, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t or de r de nyin g Mo sb y ’s m ot io n fo r

te rm in at io n o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-