675 F. App'x 624
7th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Charles Colson pleaded guilty (2011) to possessing and transporting child pornography and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and lifetime supervised release.
- In January 2016 Colson moved to modify several conditions of his supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c).
- The government missed two response deadlines; after four months Colson moved for the court to enter his proposed (unopposed) modifications.
- The district court granted some of Colson’s requests but also added several new conditions and did so without holding a hearing.
- Colson appealed, arguing a hearing was required under Rule 32.1(c); the government contended Colson waived a hearing or that the changes were favorable.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded, concluding several of the district court’s changes were more restrictive and therefore required a hearing before imposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a hearing was required before modifying supervised-release conditions | Colson: Rule 32.1(c) requires a hearing unless waived or the change is favorable and the government had notice and opportunity to object | Government: Colson waived a hearing by moving for summary judgment; alternatively, all changes were clarifying/favorable | Hearing required; waiver was not shown and several changes were less favorable, so Rule 32.1(c) applies |
| Whether Colson’s motion constituted an express waiver of the hearing | Colson: He sought entry of unopposed changes, not waiver of a hearing on additional terms | Government: The motion was a de facto waiver of a hearing | Court: Rejected waiver argument; motion did not authorize court to add new, unagreed restrictions without a hearing |
| Whether specific substance/alcohol language was favorable | Colson: Challenged vague "excessive use of alcohol" and sought narrower language | Government: New language ("psychoactive substances") clarifies original condition | Court: Modification was more restrictive (bans lawful psychoactive substances); not favorable; hearing required; suggested phrase: "illegal mood-altering substances" |
| Whether added conditions on association, computer monitoring, and contact with minors were favorable | Colson: Argued some original protections were removed and new terms expanded probation discretion and restricted employment and movements | Government: Some rewordings narrowed scope or clarified original terms | Court: Several additions (broad ban on contact/locations, stricter association rule, deletion of employment-protection language) were more onerous; thus not favorable and required a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Neal, 810 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 2016) (procedural context for postjudgment modifications under Rule 32.1)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (limits on vagueness and need for scienter in supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Cary, 775 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2015) (suggested language: prohibit "illegal mood-altering substances")
- United States v. Hill, 818 F.3d 342 (7th Cir. 2016) (vagueness of conditions makes them hard to comply with)
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing incidental versus non-incidental interactions with minors)
- United States v. Williams, 840 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2016) (courts may defer modification requests made long before supervised-release start date)
- United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2014) ("best practices" include considering modifications near the commencement of supervised release)