United States of America v. Donald Maclaren

2018 DNH 220

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: November 6, 2018
• Docket: 97-cr-144-1-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 97-cr-144-1-SM Opinion No. 2018 DNH 220 Donald Maclaren

O R D E R

The defendant seeks somewhat unusual relief in this

criminal case and, while the government is in agreement with the

defendant, the Probation Office in this district takes an

opposing position. On its face, defendant’s petition presents a

straightforward question, but one upon which those courts that

have considered it are not in complete agreement. The question

is this: when does the period of supervised release begin to run

with respect to a defendant who remains in federal custody after

his prison term has expired due to a stay of release, or, here,

a detention order under the Adam Walsh Act’s civil commitment

procedures?

The government and defendant say the supervised release

term begins to run when he is released from custody imposed in

the civil commitment proceeding. The Probation Office

disagrees, contending that defendant’s supervised release term

began to run when the period of imprisonment imposed by his

criminal sentence expired. Consequently, the Probation Office

1 asserts that the defendant’s supervised release term has already

fully run.

The weight of precedent falls heavily in favor of the

government and defendant. For reasons thoroughly and

persuasively explained in United States v. Maranda, 761 F.3d 689

(7th Cir. 2014), the better view appears to be that civil

detention and commitment under the Adam Walsh Act precludes

finding that defendant was “released from imprisonment” such

that his term of supervised release began to run upon expiration

of his criminal sentence to a term of imprisonment. See also

United States v. Neuhauser, 745 F.3d 125 (4th Cir. 2014); United

States v. Mosby, 719 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2013); United States v.

Seger, 993 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D. Me. 2014). The Ninth Circuit has

taken a different view (over the dissent of Judge M. Smith), in

United States v. Turner, 689 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2012). There

is no controlling precedent in this circuit.

While the petition here raises complicated and nuanced

issues, the specific question presented need not be decided on

the merits — in the sense that the applicable law need not be

construed — because in this case the principal parties, the

government and the defendant, agree that the rule followed by

the majority of circuit courts of appeals that have confronted

the question should prevail. That position is reasonable and

supported by recognized and persuasive legal authority. And,

perhaps more importantly, the parties’ agreement on that issue

2 precludes any notion of the existence of a genuine dispute or

actual case or controversy.

While the Probation Office in this district has an interest

in the outcome, the Probation Office is an arm of the court, and

will of course not be prejudiced in any cognizable way whether

supervision is carried out in the context of supervised release

or a release plan developed under the Adam Walsh Act, or both.

Resolution of subtle issues about the appropriate role of the

Probation Office in a non-dispute between the principal parties

is best left to another day, when the issues are better and more

clearly in dispute. But, assuming standing and an important

interest, the result is the same.

Given the prevailing weight of authority, and that the

government and defendant are in agreement with respect to the

relief sought, the court determines that, with respect to this

case, defendant’s period of supervised release does not commence

until he is released from federal custody imposed as a result of

civil commitment proceedings under the Adam Walsh Act.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

November 6, 2018

cc: Arnold H. Huftalen, AUSA Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq. U.S. Probation U.S. Marshal