United States v. Darrin MarandaUnited States v. Darrin Maranda
A judge who adds or subtracts issues in a pending arbitration has neither compelled nor forbidden arbitration; the judge has instead resolved an issue in the arbitration. That is why we held in Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. v. BCS Insurance Co., 671 F.3d 635 (7th Cir.2011), that a proposal to tell an arbitrator what to do is not a request for “an order directing arbitration” within the meaning of
We explained in Blue Cross that a party‘s request to tell an arbitrator how to act in a pending proceeding is not a request to compel arbitration, no matter what caption the litigant puts on its motion. And we added that “judges must not intervene in pending arbitration to direct arbitrators to resolve an issue one way rather than another. Trustmark Insurance Co. v. John Hancock Life Insurance Co., 631 F.3d 869 (7th Cir.2011). Review comes at the beginning or the end, but not in the middle.” 671 F.3d at 638. Once the arbitration is over, the losing side can seek judicial review.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Jason M. Bohm, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Urbana, IL, Joseph H. Hartzler, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Springfield, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Nathaniel A. Nieman, Attorney, Moline, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
FLAUM, Circuit Judge.
This appeal requires us to decide when the clock starts on a criminal defendant‘s term of supervised release. Ordinarily, the answer is straightforward—supervised release begins once the defendant leaves prison and reenters society. Darrin Maranda‘s case, however, presents an unusual situation: a defendant who has completed his prison sentence, but who remains in federal custody while he awaits a determination of whether he will be civilly committed pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The government argues that because the Adam Walsh Act stayed Maranda‘s release pending the outcome of his civil-commitment hearing, his term of supervised release did not begin until these proceedings were resolved in his favor and the stay was lifted. Maranda argues that his term of supervised release began on the date his criminal sentence expired, even though he remained in prison at that time. If Maranda is right, then his term of supervised release was over long before his civil-commitment proceedings ended—and long before he committed the violations of his conditions of release that he is now accused of.
The district court held that Maranda‘s term of supervised release did not begin until he was actually freed from custody. We agree. Read together, the relevant supervised-release provision,
I. Background
Darrin Maranda committed his first sex offense in 1994, and he has been in and out of prison ever since. In February 1994, Maranda exposed himself to a six-year-old girl. Four days later, he exposed himself to a female cashier at a drive-through window and attempted to pull her into his car. He pleaded guilty to state charges of public indecency and was sentenced to home confinement and conditional discharge. Six months later, Maranda molested a six-year-old boy. He pleaded guilty to a state charge of criminal sexual assault and was sentenced to eight years in prison. He was released on parole in May 1998, taken back into custody a few months later due to his failure to gain employment, and then released again in October of that year.
While on parole, Maranda downloaded and stored child pornography on his computer. He was arrested by federal authorities, and in April 2000, he pleaded guilty to one count of receipt and one count of possession of child pornography before the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, in the case that is now before us. The district court sentenced him to a total of 40 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release.
In December 2002, Maranda was released from federal prison and began serving his first term of supervision. However, in January 2005, he was arrested on a state charge of aggravated criminal sexual abuse based on the allegation that he molested the nine-year-old daughter of his then-girlfriend. In June 2005, he pleaded guilty to aggravated domestic battery instead. Maranda‘s probation officer petitioned the district court to revoke his supervised release based on this state conviction as well as other violations of the conditions of his release; the district court did so in August 2005. The court then sentenced Maranda to another 30 months in prison and two years of supervised release.
Maranda began serving his sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina (“FCI Butner“). This sentence was set to expire on March 16, 2008. But on March 10, the government filed a certificate in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina stating that Maranda was a “sexually dangerous person” under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006,
The district court did not hold Maranda‘s civil-commitment hearing until more
The district court ultimately ruled that Maranda was not a sexually dangerous person subject to commitment under the Act. The court found that Maranda met the first two requirements: (1) he had been convicted in 1994 for criminal sexual assault, and (2) he had been diagnosed with pedophilia and antisocial personality disorder. However, the court concluded that the government failed to prove that Maranda would have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released. The court‘s written opinion showed that in reaching this determination, the court considered Maranda‘s affirmation that he would be subject to conditions of supervised release for two years—including conditions tailored to Maranda‘s background as a sex offender—and Maranda‘s apparent willingness to comply with those conditions. The court also stated that “[w]ere Maranda to be released unconditionally, the court might be persuaded that Maranda poses a significant likelihood of reoffending.” Order at 12, United States v. Maranda, No. 5:08-HC-2033-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 6, 2012), ECF No. 53.
On September 6, 2012, the district court entered judgment in favor of Maranda, lifted the stay of release, and ordered Maranda to report to the Central District of Illinois to begin serving his term of supervised release. Pursuant to the government‘s request, the court once again stayed Maranda‘s release until the denial of the government‘s motion to amend the judgment. The district court denied that motion, and Maranda was released from FCI Butner on December 21, 2012.
Maranda returned to Illinois and reported for supervision. Three days later, he began receiving phone calls from another convicted sex offender who he had met at FCI Butner. Over the next couple of months, Maranda had 20 conversations with this inmate, some of which revealed that Maranda had been in contact with another convicted sex offender, as well. These communications were in violation of the condition of Maranda‘s release that he not associate with any person convicted of a felony without his probation officer‘s permission. Accordingly, in October 2013, Maranda‘s probation officer petitioned the district court in the Central District of Illinois to revoke his supervised release for a second time.
Maranda filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. He argued that his term of supervised release began on the day his 30-month sentence of imprisonment ended—that is, March 16, 2008—even though he remained in prison during the pendency of his civil-commitment proceedings. That being the case, Maranda argued, his two-year term of supervised release expired on March 16, 2010, and he was no longer subject to the probation office‘s supervision when he participated in the phone calls. The government disputed Maranda‘s theory, maintaining that his term of supervised release began on the day that he was actually released from custody. The government also argued that Maranda should be barred from asserting this theory because he avoided civil commitment only by taking a contrary position before the North Carolina district court. By now claiming that his term of supervised release had ended long before his civil-commitment hearing even took place, the government argued, Maranda was “seeking to whipsaw the two District Courts.”
The district court evaluated the relevant federal statutes and agreed with the government that the supervised-release clock did not start until Maranda was actually freed from prison at the conclusion of his civil-commitment proceedings. (The court did not discuss the government‘s equitable argument.) The court then revoked Maranda‘s supervised release and sentenced him to credit-for-time-served on the possession count—Maranda had been in custody again during the revocation proceedings—and 26 additional months of supervised release on both the receipt and possession counts. Maranda appeals.
Maranda argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release because his term of release had already run. We review this legal question de novo. See United States v. Russell, 340 F.3d 450, 452 (7th Cir.2003).
A. Judicial estoppel
The government argues that we need not reach the merits because judicial estoppel bars Maranda from claiming that his term of supervised release expired on March 16, 2010. See, e.g., Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U.S. 680, 689, 15 S.Ct. 555, 39 L.Ed. 578 (1895) (“[W]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him.“). In his civil-commitment hearing, Maranda repeatedly affirmed to the district court for the Eastern District of North Carolina that he would be subject to a two-year term of supervised release upon his leaving custody. And that court apparently credited Maranda‘s representations and relied on them to find that the government had not established a case for Maranda‘s commitment. But before the district court for the Central District of Illinois, of course, Maranda argued that his period of supervised release was over long before his Adam Walsh Act proceedings ended. Understandably, the government accuses Maranda of “playing ‘fast and loose’ with the courts” by attempting to “prevail[] twice on opposing theories.” In re Airadigm Commc‘ns, Inc., 616 F.3d 642, 661 (7th Cir.2010).
However, we cannot decide the case on grounds of judicial estoppel. Maranda‘s about-face aside, his current argument goes to the district court‘s subject-matter jurisdiction. If Maranda is right that his
We cannot rely on judicial estoppel to give the district court jurisdiction that it may not otherwise have had. E.g., Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982) (because “no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court ... principles of estoppel do not apply“); Erie Ins. Exch. v. Erie Indem. Co., 722 F.3d 154, 162-63 (3d Cir.2013) (federal courts cannot apply judicial estoppel “in a way that would impermissibly expand federal judicial power in violation of Article III“). Indeed, in the Eighth Circuit case presenting the same question as our own, the government agreed that the defendant could raise the argument that his term of supervised release began when his prison sentence expired—notwithstanding the defendant‘s earlier stipulation that his supervised release would begin only upon his freedom from custody—“since [the defendant‘s claim] involves the district court‘s jurisdiction to supervise him under
B. The merits
We therefore continue to the merits of Maranda‘s argument that his term of supervised release began on the day his prison sentence expired, rather than on the day he was physically released from custody.
There are two federal statutes relevant to this issue. The first is
A prisoner shall be released by the Bureau of Prisons on the date of the expiration of the prisoner‘s term of imprisonment, less any time credited toward the service of the prisoner‘s sentence as provided in subsection (b).
A prisoner whose sentence includes a term of supervised release after imprisonment shall be released by the Bureau of Prisons to the supervision of a probation officer who shall, during the term imposed, supervise the person released to the degree warranted by the conditions specified by the sentencing court. The term of supervised release commences on the day the person is released from imprisonment and runs concurrently with any Federal, State, or
local term of probation or supervised release or parole for another offense to which the person is subject or becomes subject during the term of supervised release. A term of supervised release does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a Federal, State, or local crime unless the imprisonment is for a period of less than 30 consecutive days.
The other relevant statute is
In relation to a person who is in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons ... the Attorney General or any individual authorized by the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons may certify that the person is a sexually dangerous person, and transmit the certificate to the clerk of the court for the district in which the person is confined.... The court shall order a hearing to determine whether the person is a sexually dangerous person. A certificate filed under this subsection shall stay the release of the person pending completion of procedures contained in this section.
Maranda‘s statutory argument can be paraphrased as follows:
But Maranda‘s reading ignores the Adam Walsh Act‘s stay-of-release provision in
It makes far more sense to read the phrase “released from imprisonment” in
The Supreme Court disagreed. Invoking the “ordinary, commonsense meaning” of the word “release,” the Court construed
Given the different factual contexts, Johnson does not squarely control here. That said, we see no reason to interpret
Resisting Johnson‘s application, Maranda argues that one can only be subject to “imprisonment” if he is being detained as punishment for a criminal conviction (even one that is later found invalid, as in Johnson). And he points out, rightly, that his detention pending the outcome of his Adam Walsh Act hearing was not meant to be punitive. Cf. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361-65, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (evaluating a state civil-commitment statute and finding it nonpunitive because the statute did not seek retribution, only incapacitation). Thus, in Maranda‘s view, because “imprisonment” necessarily means detention as a result of a criminal sentence—and because he was detained from 2008 to 2012 in connection with a civil proceeding—Maranda must have been “released from imprisonment” when his prison sentence ended in 2008.
We do not find this syllogism convincing. First, we are unwilling to accept Maranda‘s premise that the word “imprisonment” necessarily implies a connection to criminal punishment. “On the contrary, to imprison someone is simply to ‘put [a person] in prison.‘” Neuhauser, 745 F.3d at 128 (citing Webster‘s New Collegiate Dictionary 572 (1979)); see also id. (pointing to “numerous dictionaries” that “confirm that the term ‘imprisonment’ ‘focuses on the ... nature of confinement, not the reasons for its imposition‘” (quoting Tobey v. United States, 794 F.Supp.2d 594, 598 (D.Md.2011))); United States v. Goins, 516 F.3d 416, 422 (6th Cir.2008) (concluding that “the plain meaning of ‘imprison’ ... includes not only confinements as a result of a conviction, but any time the state detains an individual“); Garner‘s Dictionary of Legal Usage 490 (3d ed.2011) (explaining that the verbs “jail,” “imprison,” “incarcerate,” “immure,” “lock up,” and “intern” all “share the sense ‘to sequester and confine in a secure place so as to prevent escape‘“). And indeed, Congress has used the term elsewhere in the federal criminal code to refer to detentions that are not pursuant to a criminal sentence. See
But even granting that the word “imprisonment” often connotes a connection to a conviction, Maranda‘s argument fails in the specific instance of
There is another reason favoring our interpretation: it effects the objectives underlying a sentence of supervised release. Cf. Johnson, 529 U.S. at 59 (“While the text of
Maranda‘s reading would not only render many of the conditions of supervised release useless or nonsensical. It would undermine their very purpose. Mosby, 719 F.3d at 929 (“To start a term of supervised release while an individual is still physically confined by federal authorities would frustrate one of its key purposes which is to help individuals as they transition into the community.“); see also S.Rep. No. 98-225, p. 124 (1983) (stating that “the primary goal [of supervised release] is to ease the defendant‘s transition into the community after the service of a long prison term ... or to provide rehabilitation to a defendant who has spent a fairly short period in prison for punishment or other purposes but still needs supervision and training programs after release“), quoted in Johnson, 529 U.S. at 59. As the district court for the Eastern District of North Carolina reasoned in declining to order Maranda‘s commitment, conditions of supervised release can serve as a less drastic alternative to commitment in borderline cases. Under Maranda‘s reading of
In interpreting
We agree with the Fourth and Eighth Circuits and the Turner dissent that the Ninth Circuit majority was looking at the wrong part of
The government has not advanced that interpretation in our case, however. And, of course, Maranda was not civilly commit
III. Conclusion
Having found that Maranda was still subject to the conditions of his supervised release at the time he committed the violations he‘s accused of, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.