United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Edward's motion for early termination
of supervised release (Doc. 48). The government, in agreement
with the United States Probation Office's position,
opposes the motion (Doc. 52). Based on the record and the
applicable law, the Court agrees with the government and
finds that early termination supervised release is not
August 14, 2015, the Court sentenced Edwards to 18 months in
prison and 3 years supervised release the distribution of
cocaine (Docs. 44 & 46). Edwards' supervised release
began on December 2, 2016.
to 18 U.S.C. § 3583, the Court may grant early
termination of supervised release at any time after the
expiration of one year if, after considering certain factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the Court finds that
“such action is warranted by the conduct of the
defendant released and the interest of justice.” 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). The factors that must be considered
• the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
characteristics of the defendant (18 U.S.C. §
• the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct (18 U.S.C. §
• the need for the sentence imposed to protect the
public from further crimes of the defendant (18 U.S.C. §
• the need to provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training, medical care, or other
correctional treatment in the most effective manner (18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D));
• the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range
established for the applicable category of offense committed
by the applicable category of defendant and any pertinent
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission (18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4), (a)(5));
• the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities
(18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)); and
• the need to provide restitution to any victims of the
offense (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7)).
to grant a motion for early termination of supervised release
is entirely within the discretion of the district court.
United States v. Temple, 464 Fed.Appx. 541, 544 (7th
Cir. 2012); United States v. Hook, 471 F.3d 766, 771
(7th Cir. 2006). However, the district judge must give some
indication that he considered the relevant statutory factors.
Id. The Court need not make explicit findings on
each of the relevant factors, but the record must reveal the
court gave consideration to the § 3553(a) factors.
United States v. Lowe, 632 F.3d 996, 998 (7th Cir.
2011) (reversing the denial of a motion for early termination
of supervised release where the district court did not
consider the proper statutory factors and the Government and
probation office did not object to the motion). The Seventh
Circuit has held that a hearing is not required before
denying a request for modification. See United States v.
Nonahal, 338 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 2003); see also
United States v. Reagan, 162 Fed.Appx. 912, 913 (11th
Cir. 2006) (finding that no hearing was required before the
district court denied a request for early termination of
Edwards meets the initial requirement - he has been on
supervised release for over 1 year (19 months). Therefore,
the Court must determine whether Edwards' conduct and the
interests of justice warrant termination. Having considered
the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors, the Court
denies the request. The Court finds that Edwards fails to
make the necessary showing to warrant early termination of
his supervised release. At sentencing, the Court ordered a 3
year term of supervised release. Thus, Edwards has only
served a little more than 50% of his supervised release.
Furthermore, probation and the government's objections
are reasonable based on the facts and history of the case.
Even as he moves for early termination, Edwards is employed
less than half time. Although not necessarily specific as to
this defendant since employment is dependent on many decision
making points by the employer, however, the Court is aware of
many programs in this district that provide full time
employment to supervisees. Although Edwards has not tested
positive for illegal drugs during his supervision, one of the
purposes of supervision is to provide the supervisee with a
time tested interval off drugs to determine if over the
duration of time the supervisee is likely to make it long
term. Edwards is not there yet.
was convicted of a serious crime, distribution of cocaine,
following four prior drug related offenses in state courts
within a relatively short time. Recidivism was then and is
now a substantial concern. It is encouraging that there has
not been a revocation based on a drug related crime or any
other crime for that matter. However, just as was concluded
above, Edwards is ...