772 F.3d 976
2d Cir.2014Background
- Pauline Wiltshire pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute Adderall and was sentenced on April 16, 2012 to time served plus five years supervised release (to end April 2017).
- Supervised-release conditions included not leaving the judicial district without permission and answering probation officer inquiries truthfully; Wiltshire was approved to reside in Ohio.
- Wiltshire failed to disclose employment as an exotic dancer and traveled from Ohio to Lexington, Kentucky on April 18, 2012 without probation permission.
- Magistrate Judge Pohorelsky found Wiltshire violated supervision; Judge Irizarry adopted the report and recommendation and on September 20, 2013 sentenced Wiltshire to 90 days custody (weekends) followed by five years supervised release.
- Wiltshire appealed; while her custodial sentence expired on May 25, 2014, the district court’s adjudication extended her supervised release period such that she would serve supervision through May 2019 (about two more years than originally scheduled).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / Article III jurisdiction | Wiltshire argued appeal moot because her custodial sentence expired during appeal | Government argued appeal not moot because adjudication added time to supervised release and appeal could lead to reduction | Appeal not moot: added supervised-release time is a concrete, continuing injury sufficient for Article III review |
| Whether violation was proved | Wiltshire admitted the underlying conduct but contended condition language was ambiguous and the violation was not willful | Government argued evidence showed Wiltshire willfully omitted employment and left district without permission | District court’s finding of willfulness upheld; not an abuse of discretion |
| Standard of review for revocation findings | Wiltshire urged de novo or more searching review | Government relied on deferential standards | Court applied abuse-of-discretion to revocation and clear-error to facts; affirmed |
| Remedy scope if reversal | Wiltshire sought relief eliminating added supervised-release time | Government opposed vacatur of added supervision | Court noted a favorable decision could prompt reduction of supervised release; affirmed district judgment on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1990) (Article III case-or-controversy requirement)
- United States v. Probber, 170 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. 1999) (appeal moot where sole penalty of imprisonment expired)
- United States v. Kleiner, 765 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2014) (favorable appeal might prompt reduction of supervised-release term)
- United States v. Glenn, 744 F.3d 845 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for supervised-release revocation)