18 U.S.C. § 3583, in turn, provides that courts and the USPC “may order. . . any condition set forth as a discretionary condition of probation in section 3563(b) and any other condition it considers to be appropriate.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(3) (emphasis added). It further states that courts and the UPSC “may . . . [after considering certain factors]. . . (2) extend a term of supervised release….

(id. at p. 66.)” (T7.W., supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 653, fn. 4.) Also persuasive is the United State Supreme Court case ofFreeman v. United States (2011)__ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 2685, in which plurality decision held that federal defendants who enter into plea agreements that specify a particular sentence as a condition for a guilty plea are eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. section 3583(c)(2), which authorizes a district court to modify a sentence when the defendanthas been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentence rangethat has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission througha retroactive 6 amendmentto the Sentencing Guidelines. The plurality took the view that sentences imposed pursuant to binding agreementsareeligible for later modification by a change in the law.

The standard for revocation is preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). As the jury found in convicting defendant on Counts Two, Four, and Five of the Second Case3:14-cr-00306-WHA Document652 Filed06/02/15 Page1 of 2 United States’ Response re Form 12 CR 14-0306 WHA & CR 08-0222 WHA 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Superseding Indictment in 14-0306, the evidence at trial established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the fraud described in Charge One of the Form 12.