United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
ORDER
KRISTI
K. DuBOSE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
action is before the Court on Jonathan Maurice
Hackworth's Motion to Terminate Supervised Release Term
and supporting documents and the United States' response
(docs. 54, 56, 57). Upon consideration, and for the reasons
set forth herein, the Motion is denied.[1]
Hackworth
pleaded guilty to Count One of the Superseding Indictment
charging felon in possession of ammunition (doc. 39). On
August 4, 2016, he was sentenced to serve twelve months and
one day (doc. 52). He was released from custody on July 17,
2017 and began his three-year term of supervised release.
Hackworth
moves the Court for early termination of his supervision. He
states that he has improved his life since release.
Specifically, he married the mother of his children. He
coaches a youth football league and is a mentor to young men.
He obtained certification as a personal fitness trainer and
now supports his family by working as a Personal Trainer
Counselor in Houston, Texas. Hackworth also reports that he
has complied with all the requirements of supervision.
The
United States responds that early release is not justified
(doc. 56). The United States argues that compliance with
terms and conditions of release is not enough to support
early termination because that conduct is expected of
Hackworth. The United States also argues that Hackworth's
“move to Texas, his claimed marriage or his claimed
employment” do not constitute rehabilitation or a
change in circumstances that justify early
termination.[2] The United States points out that
Hackworth has worked as a personal trainer since 2010 and
coached youth sports in Mobile, Alabama, before moving to
Texas. Additionally, the United States argues that reducing
Hackworth's supervised release term by half is not
justified in view of his criminal history involving drugs and
guns, and his prior conviction for attempted murder.
At the
Court's request, Hackworth's former and current
Probation Officers have given their opinions. His former
Probation Officer objects to early termination because of
Hackworth's criminal history[3] and because he has served
only half of the three-year term of supervised
release.[4]His current Probation Officer states that
Hackworth has been in compliance during the five months of
supervision and based on compliance, does not object to early
termination.
Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), after consideration of the
relevant factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court may
“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)(1).
The
Court has considered the “nature and circumstances of
the offense”, Hackworth's “history and
characteristics”, the “need for the sentence
imposed … to afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct”, and to “protect the public from further
crimes of the defendant”. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
(a)(2)(B)&(C). The Court has also considered the need for
the sentence to provide correctional treatment in an
effective manner. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D).
Upon
consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that early
termination would not serve the “need for the sentence
imposed … to afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct”, to “protect the public from further
crimes of the defendant” and to provide treatment. 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B), (C)&(D). The Court commends
Hackworth for his marriage, employment, and substantial
activities as a coach and youth leader. However, the relevant
factors discussed herein weigh in favor of denying his motion
for early termination. Specifically, but not limited to, the
need for Hackworth's continued participation in drug
testing and treatment as deemed necessary by the Probation
Office, and to adequately deter criminal conduct.
Accordingly,
the Court is not satisfied that early termination is
warranted by Hackworth's conduct and the interests of
justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).
The
Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Hackworth.
---------
Notes:
[1] No. evidentiary hearing is necessary.
States v. Reagan, 162 Fed.Appx. 912, 913 (11th Cir.
2006) (“A refusal to terminate supervised release does
not constitute a modification of the term of supervised
release. Accordingly, the district court was not required to
hold an evidentiary hearing before denying Reagan's
motion.”); United States v. Smith, No.
3:88-CR-215-J-12, 2010 WL 716495, at *2 ...