United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
K. DuBOSE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Linda M. Daniels'
Motion for Early Termination of Probation (Doc. 42). Upon
consideration and for the reasons set forth herein, Defendant
Daniels' motion is GRANTED, her probation is terminated,
and she is discharged from supervision.
September 20, 2012, Daniels pled guilty to one count of mail
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. On June 21,
2013, the Court sentenced Daniels to a five year term of
probation. (Doc. 39). Daniels was required to pay restitution
in the amount of $28, 500 to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Trust. (Id.) This amount was owed jointly and
severally by Daniels and Trecia Howard McGee (13-CR-00017).
term of probation began June 21, 2013 and is scheduled to
conclude June 20, 2018. (Doc. 41). Daniels' reports that
she has fulfilled her restitution obligations and adhered to
the conditions of her probation. (Doc. 42). The United States
Probation Office has provided the Court with a memorandum
agreeing with Daniels' motion for early termination of
probation. The United States has no objection to Daniels'
request for early termination of probation.
18 U.S.C. § 3564(c) addresses early termination of
probation and sets forth, in relevant part, as follows:
(c) Early termination.--The court, after considering the
factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they
are applicable, may, pursuant to the provisions of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the
modification of probation, terminate a term of probation
previously ordered and discharge the defendant . . . at any
time after the expiration of one year of probation in the
case of a felony, if it is satisfied that such action is
warranted by the conduct of the defendant and the interest of
18 U.S.C. § 3564(c). Defendant has served over four
years of her term of probation, thus the one year requirement
has been satisfied. The decision to grant early termination
of probation is discretionary and will be reviewed for abuse
of discretion. See e.g., United States v. Reagan,
162 F. App'x. 912, 914 (11th Cir. 2006). As set forth in
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), after considering the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), a court may
terminate a term of supervised release in which the defendant
has already served at least one year. Before terminating
supervised release, the court must be “satisfied that
such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant
released and the interest of justice.” 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(1). Supervised release was designed to “improve
the odds of a successful transition from the prison to
liberty.” Johnson, 529 U.S. at 708-09, 120
S.Ct. at 1805 (2000). The goal is, in part, to facilitate
training and rehabilitation, including restitution.
Id. at 709, 120 S.Ct. at 1805. The statute's
requirement that courts examine 18 U.S.C. §§
3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), and (a)(4)-(7) before terminating
supervised release, however, indicates that these were not
Congress's only goals; the nature and circumstances of
the offense, deterrence, public protection, correctional
treatment, the guideline range established for the offense,
pertinent government policies, uniformity of sentences among
defendants committing the same types of crimes are all also
considerations related to supervised release. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(1).
Id. Specifically, the applicable factors for
consideration set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) include:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed-
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote
respect for the law, and to provide just ...