Opinion
CASE NO. 3:10-cr-113
07-01-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARC N. GREENBURG, Defendant.
JUDGE THOMAS M. ROSE
ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE AND
DENYING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF
PROBATION. DOC. 48.
Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Termination of Supervised Release and Request for Modification of Probation. Doc. 48. Defendant believes that he poses no risk to the public and that his participation in treatment programs, refraining from further inappropriate conduct, and receiving correctional treatment warrants termination of his supervised release or in the alternative, modification of his probation. Id. at 2-3. The Court fully disagrees.
On November 5, 2010, this Court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment for twenty-four months and supervised release for a term of five years. Doc. 10 at 2-3. On March 3, 2014, Defendant moved for termination of his supervised release and, if denied, he also moved for modification of his probation. Doc. 48 at 1.
Supervised release is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3583, which provides that a 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 . . . if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice." (e)(1). "Early termination is a discretionary decision warranted in cases of changed circumstances, such as where the defendant exhibits 'exceptionally good behavior.'" United States v. Campbell, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 32437, 3 (6th Cir. July 25, 2006) (quoting United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32, 36 (2d Cir. 1997)). Pursuant to Rule 32.1(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court must hold a hearing only if the Court decides to modify the conditions of probation or supervised release.
At this time the Court has determined that based on the conduct of the Defendant and in the interest of justice, Defendant's supervised release should not be terminated and his probation should not be modified. Sex offender treatment has not yet been completed by the Defendant and Defendant has not displayed exceptionally good behavior. Thus, continued supervised release and unmodified probation terms are both necessary to provide adequate deterrence and protect the community. Since the Court will not be terminating or modifying Defendant's supervised release, a hearing on this matter is unnecessary.
Upon reviewing the conduct of Defendant and being mindful of the interest of justice, Defendant's Motion for Termination of Supervised Release is DENIED and his Request for Modification of Probation is also DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Tuesday, July 1, 2014.
__________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE