Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 5:18-cr-20-DCB-FKB-2
12-18-2023
UNITED STATES v. ROY CORNELIUS GOODRICH DEFENDANT
ORDER
DAVID C. BRAMLETTE III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
BEFORE THE COURT is Roy Cornelius Goodrich (“Defendant”)'s Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (“Motion”). [ECF No. 110]. The Court, having examined the Motion, the record, the applicable legal authority, and being fully informed in the premises, finds that the Motion should be granted.
I. Background
In August 2019, Defendant pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute 28 grams or More of Cocaine Base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. [ECF No. 74] at 1. Defendant was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, followed by four years of supervised release. [ECF No. 95].
Defendant filed the Motion on November 9, 2023. [ECF No. 110]. Defendant alleged that he has complied with the conditions of his supervised release, maintained adequate employment, and addressed any underlying issues concerning his prior conduct through personal development programs, counseling, and a supportive network of family and friends. Id. The Government has not objected to the Motion.
II. Legal Standard
A defendant may file a motion for early termination of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). See United States v. Tacker, 2016 WL 1078267, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 17, 2016) (citing Pepper v. United States, 476 U.S. 502 (2011)). A court may “terminate a term of supervised release at any time after the defendant has served on year of supervised release . . . [and] discharge the defendant from supervised release ‘if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.'” United States v. Jeanes, 150 F.3d 483, 484 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1)). These factors are:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(3) the need for the sentence imposed to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant;
(4) the need for the sentence imposed to provide the defendant with needed education or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
(5) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range for the category of offense and category of defendant and whether the terms of supervised release were violated;
(6) the pertinent policy statements by the Sentencing Commission;
(7) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and
(8) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7).
A review of these factors and the Defendant's current circumstances warrant early termination of his supervised release term.
III. Analysis
Defendant has served three years of his supervised release term, which is tentatively scheduled to expire on December 16, 2024. He has maintained fulltime employment for three years while on supervised release. Moreover, Defendant has undertaken measures to address his prior mistakes through correctional treatment, including personal development programs and counseling. Finally, Defendant has surrounded himself with family and friends to promote and encourage his rehabilitation.
Thus, Defendant's need for rehabilitation does not appear to be an issue. The Court finds no information upon which it can find Defendant is a danger to himself or others. A review of the § 3553(a) factors and the fact that Defendant has satisfied the obligations of his supervised release convince the Court that it is in the interest of justice to grant the motion.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion [ECF No. 110] is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.