Opinion
Case No. 3:11-cv-86-2
07-31-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DENNIS RUBLE, Defendant.
Judge Timothy S. Black
DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EARLY
TERMINATION FROM PROBATION (Doc. 73)
This case is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Early Termination from Probation (Doc. 73), i.e., supervised release. The United States filed no formal objection to Defendant's Motion and the time for doing so expired on or about July 2, 2013. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion is now ripe for decision by the Court.
The United States charged Defendant with one count of transmitting threats in interstate commerce, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 875(c). On August 25, 2011, Defendant entered guilty pleas to the single count pursuant to a plea agreement entered into between himself and the United States pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). (Docs. 45). Under the plea agreement, the parties agreed, in part, that "an appropriate disposition of this case is that the Court impose a sentence with in the range of: six (6) to twelve (12) months imprisonment; 5-years of supervised release; a fine and restitution as determined by the Court; and a $100 mandatory special assessment." (Doc. 45, PAGEID 220). As part of his plea agreement, Defendant admitted to the following facts underlying the offense charged:
On or about October 24, 2010, DENNIS RUBLE, and Frank Harmon, Jr., placed several telephone calls from the Southern District of Ohio to a Veteran's Mental Health Crisis/Suicide Hotline located in the state of New York. During the series of telephone calls, RUBLE and Harmon, Jr., stated that he (Harmon, Jr.) and RUBLE were two combat marines in Dayton, Ohio, who wanted to kill people. RUBLE and Harmon, Jr. further stated that they planned to use an AK-47 rifle and a .380-caliber handgun to attack the Veteran's Administration Medical Center located in Dayton, Ohio.(Doc. 45-1, PAGEID 225).
On December 15, 2011, this case came before the Court for sentencing, during which the Court set forth the applicable sentencing range proposed by the non-binding United States Sentencing Guidelines. Application of the Guidelines provisions to the circumstances in this case set forth an advisory Guideline sentence of twenty-four to thirty months incarceration, plus two to three years of supervised release. At sentencing, the Court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Defendant to six months with credit for time served, and effectively released Defendant to a three year term of supervised release. (Doc. 63). Now, having served approximately half of his three year term of supervised release, Defendant seeks early termination of his term of supervised release.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e):
The court may, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) -Here, Defendant argues that early termination is appropriate because he has fully cooperated with probation, complied with all conditions of release, paid all fines, performed all of the community service ordered, has gainful employment, and in fact, has been promoted at least twice with his current employer. Defendant acknowledges his problems with alcohol and vows that alcohol is no longer part of his life. Defendant does not provide the Court with any information concerning his continued treatment for alcohol dependence or his efforts to remain proactive in maintaining his sobriety.
(1) 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[.]
Defendant's Probation Officer, Melissa Stidham, in response to Defendant's request, informed the Court as follows:
In reviewing the case for an early termination of supervision, it would appear Mr. Ruble meets the criteria as defined in Title 18 U.S.C 3583(e)(1). Mr. Ruble has completed approximately 18 months of his term of supervised release. While he has been on supervision, Mr. Ruble has completed substance abuse treatment through Nova House and also complied with mental health treatment through DayMont Behavioral Health Care. In addition, Mr. Ruble completed 40 hours community service through the Salvation Army. Mr. Ruble has obtained and maintained employment with Green Tokai throughout his term of supervision. He has complied with instructions from the probation department and paid his special assessment in full. There is no indication Mr. Ruble has had contact with the co-defendant in this case or used illicit substances or alcohol. On June 13, 2013, a records check was conducted and Mr. Ruble has not had any arrests or convictions since beginning his term of supervised release.
The United States Attorney's Office was contacted regarding this request for early termination of supervision. The U.S. Attorney's
Office objects to the defendant receiving an early release from supervision based on the severity of Mr. Ruble's offense conduct.
While Mr. Ruble has been compliant with his conditions of supervised release, the probation department agrees with the position of the United States Attorney's Office. Specifically the probation office believes the nature of the instant offense does not make Dennis Ruble a good candidate for early termination. In addition, Mr. Ruble has done nothing during his term of supervised release that sets him apart from the majority of the individuals currently serving their term of federal supervision who in fact are in compliance with the terms of their supervision.
Upon the application of the § 3553 factors, and considering the recommendation of Ms. Stidham, the Court DENIES Defendant's request for early termination of supervised release. The Court acknowledges Defendant's efforts while on supervised release and commends Defendant in that regard. Certainly, Defendant has shown this Court and his probation officer that he takes his punishment seriously and is dedicated to living constructively, productively and soberly. Nevertheless, the Court imposed a less than guideline sentence in this case finding that such a sentence, in its totality, was sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing.
Despite Defendant's compliance with the terms of supervised release, as noted by Ms. Stidham, his efforts do not set "him apart from the majority of the individuals currently serving their term of federal supervision who in fact are in compliance with the terms of their supervision." In other words, Defendant is performing exactly as this Court expects and anticipates. As such, the Court continues to view the three year term of supervised release as sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing, and at this time, finds that Defendant must continue to serve that term. In denying Defendant's Motion, the Court has considered all of the applicable factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), but focuses extensively on the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct and the need to provide Defendant with correctional treatment in the most effective manner, all of which point this Court to continuing supervision as ordered.
Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Early Termination of Probation. (Doc. 73).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge