Fields v. USA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID E. FIELDS,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
Civil No. 25-cv-01969-JPG
Criminal No 08-cr-30058-JPG-1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Petitioner David Field’s Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1).
I. 	BACKGROUND
On June 9, 2008, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(D)(2) and one count of possession of a
cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The Court sentenced
Petitioner to 120 months in prison and 8 years of supervised release. Petitioner did not appeal his
conviction.
Petitioner’s first term of supervised release commenced on January 10, 2017. Less than
two months later, the United States Probation Office petitioned to revoke his supervised release.
At his final revocation hearing, Petitioner admitted to committing the offenses of possession of
cannabis with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and speeding. The Court
sentenced him to 24 months in prison and 8 years of supervised release. Petitioner did not appeal
his revocation.
His second term of supervised release began on November 12, 2019. Over four years
later, on May 23, 2024, the United States Probation Office petitioned to revoke his supervised
Case 3:25-cv-01969-JPG Document 2 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
release. At his final revocation hearing, Petitioner admitted to committing the offense of
unlawful possession with intent to deliver cannabis. The Court sentenced him to 36 months in
prison and 24 months of supervised release. He did not appeal his revocation. However, a few
months later, he filed the pending motion challenging his revocation sentence under 28 U.S.C. §
2255.
In his § 2255 motion, Petitioner raises the following claims:
Ground 1: 	The revocation of Petitioner’s supervised release is “too much” like a
criminal punishment without trial under United States v. Haymond, 588
U.S. 634 (2019), and violates his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.
Ground 2: 	Petitioner has been sentenced three times for one offense in three separate
proceedings, which violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.
Ground 3: 	Petitioner’s supervised release violates his substantive due process rights
because it subjects him to arbitrary and irrational sanctions and restricts
fundamental liberties without being narrowly tailored to a compelling
government interest.
Ground 4: 	Since Petitioner served his full term in prison and was not released early,
the Court lacks any power to put conditions on his release, and he is
entitled to the absolute liberty of the citizen.
Pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United
States District Courts, the Court has determined that it is plain from the motion and the record of
the prior proceedings that Petitioner is not entitled to relief on Grounds 2 and 4.
II. 	ANALYSIS
The Court must grant a § 2255 motion when a petitioner’s “sentence was imposed in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). However,
“[r]elief under § 2255 is available ‘only in extraordinary situations, such as an error of
constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude or where a fundamental defect has occurred which
Case 3:25-cv-01969-JPG Document 2 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
results in a complete miscarriage of justice.’” United States v. Coleman, 763 F.3d 706, 708 (7th
Cir. 2014) (quoting Blake v. United States, 723 F.3d 870, 878–79 (7th Cir. 2013)). It is proper to
deny a § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing if “the motion and the files and records of
the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); see
Shipman v. United States, 925 F.3d 938, 943 (7th Cir. 2019).
A. Ground 2 – Double Jeopardy Clause:
Petitioner alleges that the revocation of his supervised release violates the Double
Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he has now been sentenced three times for one
offense in three separate proceedings. The Court must reject this argument. In United States v.
Wyatt, the Seventh Circuit stated that “supervised release is a part of the defendant’s original
sentence . . . and ‘it is the original sentence that is executed when the defendant is returned to
prison after a violation of the terms of his release.’” 102 F.3d 241, 245 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting
United States v. Soto-Olivas, 44 F.3d 788, 790 (7th Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Thus, the proper understanding of a revocation of supervised release is simply that by
engaging in prohibited conduct (criminal or not) during the term of supervised release, a
defendant triggers a condition that permits modification of the terms of his original sentence.” Id.
Since “revocation of supervised release amounts only to a modification of the terms of the
defendant’s original sentence,” revocation does not constitute a second prosecution or
punishment. Id. As such, the revocation of Petitioner’s supervised release does not violate the
Double Jeopardy Clause.
B. Ground 4 – Lack of Power to Condition Release:
Petitioner argues that supervised release is not parole and may not be treated as such. He
Case 3:25-cv-01969-JPG Document 2 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
says that the power to issue conditions of release under parole stems from an early grant of
release, which is a gift to the individual that he is not entitled to. He alleges that, since he served
his full term of imprisonment and was not given any leniency, the Government lacks the power
to put any conditions on his release. This argument must be rejected. “[A]t sentencing a district
court hands down only one ‘sentence,’ which can include a term of supervised release.” United
States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862, 869 (7th Cir. 2016). In other words, the “terms of supervised
release are part of the sentence.” United States v. Adkins, 743 F.3d 176, 192 (7th Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, Petitioner’s has not served his entire sentence until after he has completed his term
of supervised release.
III. 	CONCLUSION
The Court ORDERS the Government to file a response to Grounds 1 and 3 of Petitioner’s
§ 2255 motion within THIRTY DAYS of the entry of this order. The Government shall, as part
of its response, attach all relevant portions of the record in the underlying criminal case.
Petitioner shall have FOURTEEN DAYS to reply to the Government’s response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 13, 2026
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01969-JPG Document 2 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>