United States v. Hogenkamp, No. 20-1376 (7th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Hogenkamp pleaded guilty to a federal crime and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment plus 25 years’ supervised release. Fourteen months before the anticipated end of his custodial time (April 2021), he asked the district court to modify the terms of his supervised release. The judge denied his motion as premature, suggesting that Hogenkamp wait until after his release to seek a change in those terms.

The Seventh Circuit remanded. A prisoner is entitled to know, before he leaves prison, what terms and conditions govern his supervised release. Those terms govern where a person may live, with whom he may associate, and what jobs he may hold from the day he walks out of prison. Federal judges may alter the terms and conditions of supervised release at any time, 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(2). A district judge has the discretion to determine the apt time for decision—provided that a motion made a reasonable time in advance of release is resolved before supervised release begins--and to decide whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary. Hogenkam’s date is approaching; further delay in making a decision is appropriate only if the court has reason to think that better information will be available in the next few months.

Download PDF

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-1376 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEREMY HOGENKAMP, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 11-cr-131-bbc — Barbara B. Crabb, Judge. ____________________ SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 2, 2020 — DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 2020 ____________________ Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and WOOD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Jeremy Hogenkamp pleaded guilty to a federal crime and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment plus 25 years’ supervised release. Fourteen months before the anticipated end of his custodial time (April 2021), he asked the district court to modify the terms of his supervised release. The judge denied this motion, deeming it premature, and invited Hogenkamp to “discuss the terms of his supervised release with his probation o cer” later—“[a]t the time that 2 No. 20-1376 defendant is released”—and “ask the court for a modi cation of the terms … at that time.” To the extent that the judge believed it appropriate to defer consideration of Hogenkamp’s motion until after his release, the decision is mistaken. A prisoner is “entitled to know, before he leaves prison, what terms and conditions govern his supervised release.” United States v. Williams, 840 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2016) (emphasis added). See also United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705, 716–17 (7th Cir. 2014). The terms of release govern maiers including where a person may live, with whom he may associate, and what jobs he may hold. All of these (and other terms too) a ect him on the day he walks out of prison. The need for pre-release knowledge of the rules is among the reasons why the terms are included in the judgment of conviction. People must be able to plan their lives. Federal judges may alter the terms and conditions of supervised release at any time. 18 U.S.C. §3583(e)(2). To the extent that Hogenkamp believes that he is entitled to a judicial decision whenever he requests, he is mistaken. Williams holds that a judge may defer acting until the arguments pro and con, and the e ects of the terms originally established, have become clearer. One sentence in Williams states that it is appropriate to make this assessment in the year or two before release, 840 F.3d at 865, but we did not compel a judge to rule immediately on every motion led during those 24 months. A district judge has discretion to determine the apt time for decision—provided that a motion made a reasonable time in advance of release is resolved before supervised release begins. Similarly, the judge has discretion to decide No. 20-1376 3 whether an evidentiary hearing is called for, or whether instead the motion can be resolved on the papers. Despite the language in the district court’s order suggesting that Hogenkamp wait until after his release to begin the process of seeking a change in the terms of his supervision, we treat the court’s boiom line as an exercise of its authority to defer decision until a time closer to Hogenkamp’s scheduled release. As that date is closing in, however, further delay in making a decision would be appropriate only if the court has some concrete reason to think that more or beier information will be available in the next two or three months. Hogenkamp wants us to instruct the judge to make the changes he proposes, but the district court must address any substantive issues in the rst instance. Rather than a rming and forcing Hogenkamp to start over in the district court, we think it appropriate to remand so that the district judge can exercise, without undue delay, the discretion she possesses and make a decision in advance of Hogenkamp’s scheduled release. See 28 U.S.C. §2106.

Primary Holding

District court erred in denying, as premature, a motion to modify the terms of supervised release; a prisoner is entitled to know, before he leaves prison, what terms govern his supervised release.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.