years in prison on a sentence that was later revoked), it should be noted that his sentence was not imposed erroneously at the time of sentencing. Rather, his sentence was revoked by a retroactively applied interpretation of the applicable statute by the Supreme Court in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). Under such circumstances, I believe that a more appropriate avenue for relief is an application to the district court under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). This statute authorizes the sentencing court to cancel a term of supervised release after it has been in effect for one year when “such action is warranted by the conduct .of the defendant released and the interest of justice.” See United States v. Spinelle, 41 F.3d 1056, 1060-61 (6th Cir.1994)(<HOLDING>). Because I believe that the majority’s
holding the district courts revocation of defendants term of supervised release did not end the courts jurisdiction over defendants release holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses holding that deportation does not extinguish term of supervised release holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release holding that a statute requiring a threeyear term of supervised release did not eviscerate the district courts discretion to adjust the term of supervised release pursuant to  3583e