United States v. Maranda, No. 13-3917 (7th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseIn 1994, Maranda exposed himself to a six‐year‐old girl, then exposed himself to a drive-through window cashier and attempted to pull her into his car. He pleaded guilty to public indecency and was sentenced to home confinement. Months later, Maranda molested a six‐year‐old. He was released from state prison in 1998 and downloaded child pornography. He was arrested, and pleaded guilty. The district court sentenced him to 40 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release. In 2002, Maranda was released and began serving of supervision. In 2005, he was arrested on an allegation that he molested a nine‐year‐old. He pleaded guilty to aggravated domestic battery. The court revoked supervised release and sentenced him to another 30 months in prison and two years of supervised release. Maranda’s sentence was to expire on March 16, 2008, but the government filed a petition under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, 18 U.S.C. 4248, which authorizes detention of a mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoner beyond the date the prisoner would otherwise be released. His release was automatically stayed. His hearing occurred more than four years later. The district court ruled that Maranda was not subject to commitment. He was released in 2012; days later, he began receiving phone calls from another convicted sex offender in violation of a release condition. His probation officer petitioned for a second revocation of supervised release. Maranda moved to dismiss, arguing that supervised release began on the day imprisonment ended. The district court rejected the argument. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Read together, the supervised‐release provision, 18 U.S.C. 3624(e), and the stay‐of‐release provision in the civil‐commitment statute, 18 U.S.C. 4248(a), establish that he was not “released from imprisonment” while awaiting the outcome of his civil commitment proceedings.
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.