United States v. Jarrett James
673 F. App'x 581
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jarrett M. James was convicted of two armed bank robberies and two § 924(c) counts and sentenced to 504 months’ imprisonment; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- James filed and lost a § 2255 motion; neither the direct appeal nor § 2255 raised objections to conditions of supervised release.
- Approximately eight years after conviction and more than 25 years before his projected release, James moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) to modify conditions of supervised release.
- He alleged procedural defects at sentencing (lack of advance notice and oral pronouncement of conditions) and substantive defects (strict liability, vagueness, and lack of tailoring); he also raised restitution-related claims.
- The district court deemed procedural and restitution challenges waived and denied substantive challenges without prejudice, reasoning it was sensible to address them nearer to release.
- James appealed; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding procedural and restitution claims waived and the district court’s discretionary deferral of substantive review proper; full resentencing was unavailable under § 3583.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural validity of supervised-release conditions | James: sentencing court failed to give advance notice or orally pronounce conditions. | Government: objections were not raised on direct appeal, so waived. | Waived for failure to raise on first appeal; district court correct to treat as waived. |
| Substantive validity of conditions (vagueness, strict liability, tailoring) | James: conditions are vague, impose strict liability, and aren’t tailored to him. | Government: court may defer substantive adjudication until closer to release; conditions can be challenged later. | Court properly exercised discretion to defer review; denial without prejudice affirmed. |
| Restitution challenges | James: restitution award is improper (various arguments). | Government: restitution issues were not raised earlier and are waived. | Waived for failure to raise on direct appeal, § 2255, or in district court. |
| Availability of full resentencing under § 3583 | James: seeks full resentencing to fix both imprisonment and supervised-release aspects. | Government: § 3583 authorizes modification only of supervised-release conditions; imprisonment sentence is final. | Full resentencing unavailable; § 3583 permits only modification of conditions of supervised release. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. James, 571 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2009) (direct-appeal decision affirming convictions)
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (procedural rules for setting supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (conditions must be tailored, not vague or impose strict liability)
- United States v. Neal, 810 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 2016) (procedural shortcomings must be raised at first opportunity)
- United States v. Orlando, 823 F.3d 1126 (7th Cir. 2016) (district court may deny relief without prejudice to later renewal)
- United States v. Williams, 840 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2016) (district court may require defendants to litigate supervised-release challenges closer to release)