U.S. v. Malik, 2015 WL 4258271 (7/15/15) (Col.) (unpub'd) - The district court committed plain error when it imposed a longer two-year, rather than a one-year, supervised release term because it erroneously believed it could not later extend the term if Mr. Malik screwed up. The plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) allows an extension. The 10th agrees with the government's concession that the 3rd & 4th prongs of the plain error reversal test apply because there was a strong possibility he would have received a one-year, rather than a two-year, supervised-release term if the district court knew the term could later be extended. This was so because the court gave its incorrect view of the law as the biggest reason for the length of the term.