Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted August 30, 2016 Decided September 6, 2016 Before… v. Andre Williams

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 30, 2016*
Decided September 6, 2016
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
No. 16-­‐‑1913
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-­‐‑Appellee,
v.
ANDRE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-­‐‑Appellant.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for
the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 95 CR 242-­‐‑6
Robert W. Gettleman,
Judge.
Order
Andre Williams, who has 14 years left to serve in prison (his release is
scheduled for 2030, if he earns and retains all good-­‐‑time credits), asked the
district court to revise some conditions that will apply to supervised release once
* This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b).
After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 16-­‐‑1913 Page 2
his time in prison ends. The district court declined, deeming the application
premature.
District judges have the authority to revise terms of supervised release “at
any time” (18 U.S.C. §3583(e)(2)). Williams maintains that because a
judge may act at any time, the judge must act whenever requested to do so. The
district judge thought otherwise, observing that in the 14 years between now and
Williams’s scheduled release, “he may have totally other issues that he might
want to deal with regarding supervised release.” The judge might have added
that the governing law (including controlling decisions of this court) may change
between now and then.
If the district judge had proposed to defer decision until Williams was
actually out of prison, then we would be inclined to think the decision a mistake.
Williams is entitled to know, before he leaves prison, what terms and conditions
govern his supervised release. We would be reluctant to allow a judge to deem
premature a request in the final year or two of imprisonment. But treating a
request 14 years in advance as premature, and requiring the prisoner to make all
potential arguments at one time in the year or so before release, is a sound
exercise of discretion.
On that understanding, the judgment is affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --