United States District Court, D. Maryland
Xinis United States District Judge.
before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Modify
Conditions of Supervised Release or, in the Alternative,
Correct Judgment. ECF No. 503. The matter is fully briefed,
and a motions hearing was held on May 23, 2018. For the
reasons stated below, Defendant's motion is DENIED.
April 3, 2017, the Grand Jury for the District of Maryland
indicted Patricia Yvonne Diggs (“Diggs” or
“Ms. Diggs”) for Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. See ECF No.
346. After trial, the jury found Diggs guilty of the sole
count pending against her. See ECF No. 373. Diggs
was sentenced two days in prison (time served), followed by
five years of supervised release with a special condition
that she serve six months of home detention with location
monitoring and six months of “intermittent
confinement” in a Bureau of Prisons facility.
See ECF No. 444.
sentencing, the Court initially ordered Diggs to serve six
months imprisonment followed by a term of supervised release,
and made clear that this sentence is sufficient but not
greater than necessary to achieve all purposes of sentencing
as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). ECF No. 492 at
80:12-17; ECF No. 492 at 84:8-9; ECF No. 492 at 86:5-6. It
was at this point in the proceedings that Diggs, to use her
words, “begged” to defer service of her prison
term until after her daughter's high school graduation in
May 2018. ECF No. 492 at 83:4-16. As grounds, Diggs noted
that because her husband is serving a lengthy prison term for
his role in masterminding the bank-fraud scheme in which Ms.
Diggs had participated, she was left as the sole caretaker
and provider for her daughter. Ms. Diggs requested the
deferral of her prison term so that she could ensure that her
daughter's school tuition was paid and that her daughter
graduated high school with minimal disruption. ECF No. 492 at
83:4-16. To accommodate this particular family need, the
Court altered the sentence in form but not function and
imposed the same six-month incarceration term as a special
condition of supervised release with service of the prison
term to begin after June 2018 (the date of her daughter's
graduation). See ECF No. 444.
Diggs today challenges the legality of imposing a period of
confinement as a condition of supervised release, at
sentencing Diggs remained mum as to this point. In fact,
neither the Government nor Diggs raised any concern about the
propriety of imposing six months confinement as a condition
of supervised release, least of all Ms. Diggs, because quite
simply, she was getting the sentence she wanted and urged
this Court to impose it.
sentencing, Diggs also never moved to alter or amend her
sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure. And although Diggs timely noted her appeal on the
underlying conviction, she also never challenged any aspect
of her sentence on appeal. Nor has she sought any relief via
habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Diggs moved to modify her conditions of supervised release on
April 13, 2018, asking that this Court substitute her
confinement period with an additional six months of home
detention. See ECF No. 503. On May 21, 2018, Diggs
supplemented her argument by asserting that the requested
modification was warranted because the Court was without
legal authority to impose intermittent confinement as a
condition of supervised release. See generally ECF
No. 512. On May 23, 2018, the Court held a motions hearing
and thereafter ordered supplemental briefing. ECF No. 513.
For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's
Motion to Amend Conditions of Supervised Release
motions hearing, the Court denied Diggs' motion to modify
supervised release conditions to substitute confinement in
prison with home confinement based on “changed
circumstances.” ECF No. 513. The Court noted that no
changed circumstances warranted such an amendment. To be
sure, Diggs has done well on supervised release, but that is
expected of her. Diggs simply provided no evidence that
called into question the Court's initial determination
that six months imprisonment was sufficient but not greater
than necessary to achieve all purposes of sentencing.
bottom, the hearing clarified that Diggs principally sought
this modification to cure what she viewed as an
“illegal” condition of supervised release, and
maintained that the Court was without authority to impose six
months confinement as a condition of supervised
release.She asks the Court to right this wrong by
eliminating the confinement condition and substituting
additional home detention in its place and pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). See ECF No. 512 & ECF
No. 515. Neither the law nor equity commands this result, and
so the Court denies Diggs' motion.
plain terms, section 3583(e) permits the Court to modify
conditions of supervised release “after considering the
factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B),
(a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6) and
(a)(7).” These particularly ...