United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville
Taylor, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
B. Russell, Senior Judge United States District Court.
matter comes before the Court upon Motion by Defendant Aaron
Taylor, (“Taylor”), for early termination of his
term of supervised release. [DN 30.] The United States has
responded, [DN 31], and the time has passed for Taylor to
file a Reply. For the reasons that follow, Taylor's
Motion [DN 30] is DENIED.
December of 2014, Taylor pleaded guilty to being a person
convicted of a felony in possession of a firearm and
ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
[See DN 1, DN 27.] By the terms of the Judgment and
Commitment Order, among other parameters, Taylor was to be
placed under supervised release for a term of three years
upon his release from imprisonment. [DN 27, at 4.] According
to the United States' Response Brief, Taylor was released
from federal custody on January 10, 2017. [DN 31, at 2.] In
the instant Motion, Taylor has now asked the Court to
terminate his term of supervised release early. [See
18 U.S.C. § 3583 “is the general section
instructing district courts on the parameters of supervised
release.” United States v. Suber, 75 Fed.Appx.
442, 443 (6th Cir. 2003). Section 3583(e) provides as
(e) Modification of conditions or revocation - The court may,
after considering the factors set forth in section
3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5)
and (a)(6) -
(1) terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the
defendant released at any time after the expiration of one
year of supervised release, pursuant to the provisions of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the
modification of probation, if it is satisfied that such
action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released
and the interest of justice….
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). “The plain language of the
statute illustrates that § 3583(e), in the typical case,
allows a conduct-based inquiry into the continued necessity
for supervision after the individual has served one full year
on supervised release.” Suber, 75 Fed.Appx. at
443-44. Additionally, “[t]he phrase ‘interest of
justice' gives the district court latitude to consider a
broad range of factors in addition to an individual's
behavior in considering whether to terminate the supervised
release period.” Id. at 444 (citing United
States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999)).
within 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) are seven factors the Court
may consider when reaching a decision concerning the early
termination of supervised release. They are: (1) “the
nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant, ” (2) “the need
for the sentence imposed, ” (3) “the kinds of
sentences available, ” (4) “the kinds of sentence
and the sentencing range established for the applicable
category of offense committed by the applicable category of
defendant as set forth in the guidelines, ” (5)
“any pertinent policy statement” on point, (6)
“the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
among defendants with similar records who have been found
guilty of similar conduct, ” and (7) “the need to
provide restitution to any victims of the offense.” 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(7).
Motion, Taylor does not point to any of the factors listed
above, nor does he present any facts which would go directly
to those factors. Instead, he states the following:
I am currently under supervised release, in Jefferson
County…I was advised that I needed to petition to the
courts for release to unsupervised release. I currently hold
a job for the past months. I have no serious issues,
checkable by my supervising officer one Bridget Messer.
Proper planning and precision has me trying to attend school
an[d] attain my degree. Hoping to better [myself] for me and
my family [sic].
at 1.] Taylor's compliance with the terms of his
supervised release, while commendable, does not, in and of
itself, indicate that a three-year term of ...