Opinion
12-cr-00054-JSW-1
06-07-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK ADEBOWLE SOGBEIN, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
Re: Dkt. No. 791
JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Patrick Sogbein's motion for early termination of supervised release. The Government opposes the request, and the Probation Officer also does not support termination at this time. The Court has considered the parties' papers, the Probation Officer's response, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the motion.
BACKGROUND
On September 19, 2013, Mr. Sogbein was charged with conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349 and 2 (count one); conspiracy to pay and receive kickbacks involving a federal healthcare program, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2 (count two); and health care fraud and aiding and abetting health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347 and 2 (counts three through twelve). On December 4, 2013, a jury found Mr. Sogbein guilty on all counts.
Mr. Sogbein's adjusted offense level was thirty, and his criminal history category was level I, resulting in a guidelines range of 97 to 121 months. On June 17, 2014, the Court sentenced Mr. Sogbein to an above-Guidelines sentence of 144 months in custody, to be followed by three years of supervised release. The Court also ordered Mr. Sogbein to pay restitution in the amount of $1,577,426. (See Dkt. Nos. 583, 590, 592.)
Mr. Sogbein was released from prison to home confinement in 2020 pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid Relief, and Economic Security Act. The Bureau of Prisons released him from custody in 2023, and he began his term of supervised release on January 26, 2023. In support of his motion, Mr. Sogbein provides certificates and letters relating to the classes and programs he completed during his term of incarceration and home confinement, all of which are positive. (Declaration of Kaleigh Ramsey, ¶¶ 3-14, Exs. A-L.) He also submits a number of letters from family, friends, and work colleagues who attest to the efforts he has made at rehabilitation and who also speak positively of his character. (Id. ¶¶ 16-21, Exs. N-S.)
The Court has not received any notice that Mr. Sogbein violated his conditions of supervised release. In the Probation Officer's response, they note that Mr. Sogbein opened a line of credit without permission, but he was admonished and closed the account of his own accord. (Dkt. No. 800, Response from Probation at 2; Declaration of Elizabeth Vincento, ¶¶ 3-4, Exs. A-B.) Mr. Sogbein has been making payments to the restitution balance in the amount of $250 since May 2023.
ANALYSIS
A 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)--
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); see also United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The correct legal standard for deciding a motion to terminate supervised release is set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).”). Mr. Sogbein bears the burden to show that early termination is appropriate. See United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 559 n.9 (9th Cir. 2006). Mr. Sogbein has satisfied the requirement that he spend at least one year on supervised release, and he is almost halfway through his three year term.
Section 3583(e) permits “a sentencing court ... to respond to changes in the defendant's circumstances that may render a previously imposed condition of release either too harsh or inappropriately tailored to serve the general punishment goals of [Section] 3553(a).” United States v. Gross, 307 F.3d 1043, 1044 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Miller, 205 F.3d 1098, 1011 (9th Cir. 2000)); see also United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32, 35 (2d Cir. 1997). In Emmett, the court emphasized that “[t]he expansive phrases ‘conduct of the defendant' and ‘interest of justice' make clear that a district court enjoys discretion to consider a wide range of circumstances” to determine whether to terminate supervised release. Gross, 307 F.3d at 1044; accord Miller, 205 F.3d at 1011.
A district court is not required to “‘tick off each of the relevant” 3553(a) factors, but it must provide an “explanation that would permit meaningful appellate review and justify the court's conclusion.” Emmett, 749 F.3d at 822. Although Mr. Sogbein does not suggest the conditions of his supervised release are imposing any hardship on him, hardship is only one of many factors for the Court to consider. Id. at 819-20. Therefore, the Court turns to the Section 3553(a) factors.
The Court held a lengthy sentencing hearing for Mr. Sogbein and his co-defendants. It has reviewed and considered the transcript of that proceeding in resolving this motion. As the Court noted throughout that hearing, Mr. Sogbein's crimes were serious and involved Medicare fraud on a large scale. The Court incorporates its views of the nature and seriousness of the offense and the history and characteristics of Mr. Sogbein by reference. (Dkt. No. 630, Sentencing Transcript at 62:16-67:9.) The Court's views of Mr. Sogbein's pre-conviction behavior, articulated during sentencing, have been tempered by Mr. Sogbein's post-conviction record, which is commendable. In addition, it seems unlikely that Mr. Sogbein will re-offend or otherwise pose a risk to the public. That fact weighs in favor of granting his motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C).
The Court recognizes that it did terminate his co-defendant Adebole Adebimbe's term of supervised release early. However, she was nearing the end of her term of supervised release. The Probation Officer's concerns regarding Mr. Sogbein's financial circumstances convince this Court that he would benefit from additional supervision. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for early termination. This ruling is without prejudice to Mr. Sogbein renewing the motion at a later date or if his circumstances change.
IT IS SO ORDERED.