Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted April 11, 2005 Decided April 15, 2005 Before Hon.… v. John Walters

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 11, 2005
Decided April 15, 2005
Before
Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 04-4191 v.
JOHN WALTERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
No. 99 CR 135
George W. Lindberg, Judge.
Order
John Walters, who is serving a term of supervised release on a 1999 conviction for fraud,
asked the district court for early termination of his supervision. See 18 U.S.C. §3583(e)(1). Such
motions are committed to the district court's discretion, and this motion was denied because,
although Walters has not been convicted of any intervening offense or violated the terms of
supervision, he has failed to pay restitution imposed as part of the federal sentence for a 1997
fraud conviction.
Walters contends on appeal that the district judge "lacks jurisdiction" to consider his
failure to make restitution, but this misunderstands the source of jurisdiction. This is a federal
criminal prosecution, and the whole proceeding is within the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.
18 U.S.C. §3231. Walters wants early termination of supervision; Congress has granted judges
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-4191 Page 2
authority to adjudicate that request. Jurisdiction is secure. The only question is whether
nonpayment of restitution is a permissible reason for denying the motion.
Refusal to pay restitution suggests that Walters remains in need of supervision. He
apparently sees the expiration of supervised release from his 1997 fraud conviction as a privilege
to ignore the rest of the 1997 judgment. That serious misunderstanding of the effect of a
judgment, and Walters's evident disdain for his legal obligations (not to mention his criminal
recidivism), makes it prudent for the district court to continue his supervised release for the five-
year period provided by law for his second fraud conviction.
Affirmed

-- 2 of 2 --