No. 16-­--1913 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Andre Williams

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
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.
____________________
SUBMITTED AUGUST 30, 2016 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 6, 2016*
____________________
Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and POSNER and EASTERBROOK,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. 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
* The court initially resolved this appeal by nonprecedential order.
The order is being reissued as an opinion.

-- 1 of 2 --

2 No. 16-­‐‑1913
once his time in prison ends. The district court declined,
deeming the application premature.
District judges have the authority to revise terms of su-­‐‑
pervised release “at any time” (18 U.S.C. §3583(e)(2)). Wil-­‐‑
liams 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 be-­‐‑
tween now and Williams’s scheduled release, “he may have
totally other issues that he might want to deal with regard-­‐‑
ing 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, we would be inclined to
think that a mistake. Williams is entitled to know, before he
leaves prison, what terms and conditions govern his super-­‐‑
vised release. We would be reluctant to allow a judge to
deem premature a request in the final year or two of impris-­‐‑
onment. But treating a request 14 years in advance as prema-­‐‑
ture, and requiring the prisoner to make all potential argu-­‐‑
ments 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 --