735 F.3d 106
2d Cir.2013Background
- Seth Murdock was convicted in Vermont of interstate transportation of stolen vehicles, sentenced to 30 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release; the sentencing court recommended he be returned to Detroit (Eastern District of Michigan).
- Murdock has strong ties to Detroit (family, business) and a history of prior supervised-release violations in the Eastern District of Michigan.
- The BOP/Bureau attempted to place Murdock for supervision in Michigan, but Michigan Probation initially rejected his proposed residence after interviewing the wrong family member; upon reconsideration Michigan Probation would accept him only if he agreed to up to six months in a Residential Reentry Center (RRC).
- Murdock refused the RRC condition and moved in the Vermont district court under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) to modify his supervised-release conditions to require supervision in the Eastern District of Michigan.
- The Vermont district court denied the motion, reasoning it lacked authority to override the Eastern District of Michigan’s refusal; Murdock appealed and sought an injunction requiring release to Michigan pending appeal.
- The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for expedited proceedings, holding the district court has authority to consider a § 3583(e)(2) modification and should determine whether to impose Michigan’s conditional RRC requirement; the injunction pending appeal was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing court may modify supervised-release conditions to require supervision in another district | Murdock: the district court has broad authority under § 3583(e)(2) to order supervision in Eastern District of Michigan without transferee court consent | Government/Vermont court: transfer requires concurrence of transferee court under § 3605; cannot force another district to accept supervision | Court: district court has authority to consider modification under § 3583(e)(2); need not decide absolute rule on transferee consent but must weigh § 3553 factors and Michigan’s conditional acceptance |
| Whether the RRC condition is reasonable and must be imposed to secure transfer | Murdock: condition is an impermissible extension of incarceration and he declined it | Michigan Probation & government: RRC condition is reasonable given Murdock’s high-risk history and prior revocations; acceptance contingent on condition | Held: RRC condition is reasonable in light of § 3553(a) factors; court likely could not grant transfer without it and must inquire whether Murdock will accept it |
| Whether a hearing is required before modifying supervised-release to impose RRC condition | Murdock: sought transfer but objected to RRC; argued court lacked authority | Government: no objection to transfer if Murdock consents to RRC; urged expedited process | Held: Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c) applies — hearing required unless waived or relief is favorable and not enlarging terms; RRC would enlarge conditions so hearing likely required unless waived |
| Whether injunction pending appeal ordering BOP to release him to Michigan was appropriate | Murdock: asked court to order release to Michigan pending appeal | Government: opposed; noted transferee concurrence issue and Murdock’s prior refusal to accept RRC | Held: injunction pending appeal denied as moot after vacatur and remand for expedited district-court proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (trial court may modify conditions of supervised release as it sees fit)
- United States v. Vargas, 564 F.3d 618 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard of review for district-court legal rulings)
- United States v. Votta, [citation="212 Fed. App'x 142"] (3d Cir.) (transfer of supervised-release jurisdiction requires concurrence of transferee court)