United States v. Ehret ( 2023 )

Case: 21-40916 Document: 00516735928 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
____________ Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-40916 May 3, 2023
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jason Michael Ehret,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:16-CR-801-1
______________________________
Before Clement, Graves, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Jason Michael Ehret, former federal prisoner # 18467-479, was
sentenced to an 87-month term of imprisonment and a lifetime term of
supervised release following his plea of guilty to possession of child
pornography. Ehret filed two motions in the district court pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) seeking to modify the conditions of his supervised
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-40916 Document: 00516735928 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2023
No. 21-40916
release. The district court dismissed the motions based on its determinations
that the motions were unripe and that they improperly challenged the
conditions of supervised release as illegal or unconstitutional. Ehret now
appeals the dismissal of these motions.
Requests for modification are premature or unripe if they are
speculative or rest on contingent future events that may not occur as
anticipated. United States v. Carmichael, 343 F.3d 756, 761 (5th Cir. 2003).
Although, as Ehret notes, the district court did not explain in specific detail
the precise basis for its lack-of-ripeness determination, we note that Ehret’s
term of supervised release did not begin until he was released from the
custody of the Bureau of Prisons in December 2022, well after he filed the
instant motions. See United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 57 (2000). Ehret
thus fails to show error in the district court’s determination that his
§ 3583(e)(2) motions, which were filed approximately one year before he was
released, were unripe. See Carmichael, 343 F.3d at 761. 1
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED. Ehret’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
_____________________
1
This disposition does not prejudice Ehret from moving to modify the conditions
of his supervised release now that his term of supervised release has begun.
2