Whether supervised release conditions that a defendant claims violate double jeopardy protections can be challenged under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) without showing new or changed circumstances

No question identified. : should be required to file the Writ for Certiorari by March 02,2024. Accordingly, due to the delay of delivery of the notice to no fault of Sestak, the extremely limited access to the "law library" due to staffing issues at F.C.I. Englewood, Sestak, in order to prepare the Writ for Certiorari, Sestak prays the Court to allow the additional time to file. It is for the foregoing reasons that additional time is needed to file the Writ for Certiorari. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on: January 23,2024 . (sigrvature) Jeremy Sestak F.C.I. 17437-0091 9595 W. Quincy Ave. Littleon CO 80123 Appellate Case: 23-8006 Document: 010110945513 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeal UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cireuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 2, 2023 Christopher M. Wolpert lerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk of Cour Plaintiff Appellee, v. No. 23-8006 (D.C. No. JEREMY LEE SESTAK, (D. Wyo.) Defendant Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, HARTZ, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. Jeremy Lee Sestak, proceeding pro se,! appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify or terminate his supervised release conditions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2).2 We affirm. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ' We liberally construe Mr. Sestak’s pro se filings, but we do not act as his advocate. See James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). 2 In the motion, the government’s response, and the district court’s order, Mr. Sestak’s last name is misspelled as “Sestek,” see, e.g., R., vol. V at 4, 13, 22, but we use the correct spelling in this decision. Appellate Case: 23-8006 Document: 010110945513 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 2 In 2019, Mr. Sestak pleaded guilty to one count of distribution and attempted distribution of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The district court sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment followed by a ten-year term of supervised release. Mr. Sestak appealed from the district court’s judgment, but we granted the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver in his plea agreement and dismissed his appeal. United States v. Sestak, 794 F. App’x 799, 800 (10th Cir. 2020). In 2022, Mr. Sestak filed a motion seeking to modify or terminate his term of supervised release pursuant to § 3583(e)(2). That statutory section provides that a court “may modify, reduce, or enlarge the conditions of supervised release, at any time prior to the expiration . . . of the term of supervised release.” § 3583(e)(2). In his motion, Mr. Sestak did not identify any specific conditions of supervised release he sought to have modified. Instead, he argued “the supervised release term [was] illegal” and violated the double jeopardy protections of the Fifth Amendment. R., vol. V at 5. He asserted it “expos[ed] [him] to an unlimited number of prosecutions, penalties, or punishments originating from the same offense.” Id. He asked the court to declare his term of supervised release unconstitutional and to terminate it. The district court denied the motion, concluding that § 3583(e)(2) does not authorize it to modify Mr. Sestak’s supervised release based on the illegality or unconstitutionality of the imposed term. The court explained that a direct appeal or 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion are the correct procedural vehicles for bringing such a Appellate Case: 23-8006 Document: 01