finding that, because defendant's "term of supervised release was not modified," Rule 32.1 "did not call for a hearing"
Summary of this case from United States v. SweatNo. 97-1220.
June 10, 1998.
Appeal from the D.Vt.
Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
finding that, because defendant's "term of supervised release was not modified," Rule 32.1 "did not call for a hearing"
Summary of this case from United States v. Sweatfinding that, because defendant's "term of supervised release was not modified," Rule 32.1 "did not call for a hearing"
Summary of this case from United States v. Rodriguezfinding that, because defendant's "term of supervised release was not modified," Rule 32.1 "did not call for a hearing"
Summary of this case from United States v. Hinesaffirming denial of early termination where defendant complied with the terms and conditions of release in part because "[f]ull compliance . . . is merely what is expected"
Summary of this case from United States v. GoldshteynFull title:KARACSONYI v. U.S
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Date published: Jun 10, 1998
However, it is nothing more than what is required under the terms of defendant's supervised release. See…
U.S. v. SarnaAccording to the Second Circuit, "early termination of supervised release is within the discretion of the…