Opinion ID: 789371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Motion to Compel Supervised Release and Restitution

Text: 14 Following his release from custody, Spallone did not report to the United States Probation Department to begin serving his term of supervised release. 4 Accordingly, by letter motion dated November 5, 2002, the government requested the district court to order Spallone to comply with the supervision and restitution provisions of his judgment of conviction, arguing that Judge Mishler's April 18, 2002 order reduced only the incarceratory terms of Spallone's sentence. 15 In support of its motion, the government explained that its April 1, 2002 request for a ruling on the Rule 35(b) motion had been prompted by discussions with Spallone's counsel, who was concern[ed] that the defendant would serve his entire 30-month sentence prior to the completion of the government's investigation and that, therefore, the defendant would not receive any reward for his cooperation. Prosecution Letter to Court, Nov. 5, 2002, at 2. The government noted that during these discussions, there was never any consideration that the defendant's term of Supervised Release or his restitution payments be modified. The sole issue was when would the defendant be released from incarceration. Id. at 3. The government asserted that the court's April 18, 2002 order answered this question, effectively ordering Spallone's immediate release. Id. But [a]t no time did the court abrogate its prior order that the defendant ... complete 3 years of Supervised Release and make restitution. Id. 16 In a Memorandum and Order dated December 4, 2003, Judge Hurley granted the government's motion and ordered Spallone to serve the term of supervised release and to pay restitution ordered in his August 18, 2000 judgment of conviction. Judge Hurley ruled that the April 18, 2002 order granting Rule 35(b) relief was not a superseding judgment imposing an entirely new sentence, as defendant argued, but simply a mechanism to modify the incarceration aspect of the earlier judgment, with no effect on the restitution and supervised release components of that judgment. United States v. Spallone, 99-CR-0317, Order at 6-7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2003). In support of this interpretation, Judge Hurley cited circumstances giving rise to the order: 17 The nature of the April 18, 2002 order must be viewed in the undisputed context in which it was issued: (1) defense counsel asked the government to make application to Judge Mishler to reduce the incarceration portion of the sentence so that Spallone would receive some benefit from his post sentence cooperation; (2) neither party mentioned the restitution or supervised release portions of Judge Mishler's sentence during those discussions; and (3) the government explained to Judge Mishler in its letter of April 1, 2002, that it was making the Rule 35(b) motion then, rather than later, because otherwise Spallone would have served his entire term of incarceration before the matter was presented to the Court. 18 Id. at 7. He further noted that Judge Mishler had entered [n]o amended judgment ... to eliminate the restitution and supervised release portions of defendant's sentence. Id. at 7-8. Because the April 18, 2002 order, thus interpreted, did not reduce the supervised release and restitution sentences stated in the judgment of conviction, Judge Hurley concluded that he could grant the government's application without any need to correct an error in the April 18, 2002 order, action that would have implicated the limitations of Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) and 36. 5 Id. at 7. 6 19 On Spallone's motion for reconsideration, Judge Hurley clarified that his interpretation of the April 18, 2002 order was not based simply on the fact that that ruling was labeled an order rather than a judgment, but on the totality of circumstances. Citing the Seventh Circuit's decision in United States v. Niemiec, 689 F.2d 688 (7th Cir.1982), he concluded that such circumstances were properly considered in interpreting ambiguities in a court order. United States v. Spallone, 99-CR-0317, Order at 2-3 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2004).