761 F.3d 689
7th Cir.2014Background
- Maranda committed multiple sex offenses beginning in 1994 and has long prison history; in 2000 he pled guilty to possession/receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 40 months plus five years supervised release.
- In 2002 he was released from federal prison to begin supervision, but in 2005 he had a state conviction leading to revocation of supervision and a new 30-month prison term plus two years of supervised release.
- In 2008 Maranda’s federal release was stayed under the Adam Walsh Act after the government certified him as a sexually dangerous person, delaying any release pending civil-commitment proceedings.
- The North Carolina district court ultimately denied commitment, but lifted the stay in 2012, and Maranda was released to begin supervised release in December 2012; later, in Illinois, he engaged in communications violating release conditions.
- In October 2013 the Central District of Illinois revoked his supervised release and imposed further supervised release terms; Maranda challenged whether his term had begun in 2008 or upon actual release in 2012, triggering this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the term of supervised release commence under 18 U.S.C. §3624(e)? | Maranda asserts commencement was on prison-term expiry in 2008, despite custody due to §4248 stay. | Government asserts commencement occurs on actual release from custody. | Commencement occurs on the day of actual release from confinement. |
| Does judicial estoppel bar Maranda from syndicating alternative start dates? | Government argues Maranda is barred by judicial estoppel. | Maranda cannot rely on prior positions to gain jurisdiction. | Judicial estoppel cannot create jurisdiction; issue treated on merits. |
| Relation between §3624(e) commencement and §4248 stay in Adam Walsh Act context | Reading §4248(a) stay as 'stay of release' allows earlier commencement. | Stay does not redefine 'release' for §3624(e); commencement remains actual release. | Read together, §3624(e) commencement aligns with actual release, not the stay. |
| Should the Ninth Circuit Turner approach be adopted? | Turner would toll during civil-detention period. | Turner misreads tolling; commencement is not tolled. | Agree with Neuhauser and Mosby; reject Turner’s approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Neuhauser, 745 F.3d 125 (4th Cir. 2014) (commencement of supervised release aligned with actual release from confinement)
- United States v. Mosby, 719 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2013) (start of supervised release tied to custody release; rejection of Turner approach)
- United States v. Turner, 689 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2012) (Turner dissent favored; majority adopted different view on tolling)
- United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2000) (interpreted §3624(e) to mean release-once-free from confinement)
- United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (U.S. 2010) (Adam Walsh Act stay-of-release provision context)