Opinion
CR21-17RSL
09-08-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER WATERS, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
ROBERT S. LASNIK,UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's “Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release” (Dkt. # 38). The Court, having reviewed the motion, records, and files herein, as well as the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), DENIES defendant's motion.
“[A]fter considering a subset of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), a court may terminate a term of 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. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1)). “The 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 when determining whether to grant early termination.” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1)).
Here, while the Court commends defendant's excellent compliance with the terms of his supervised release, it concludes that he will be well-served by completing at least two years of his three-year term of supervised release. See Dkt. # 38 at 2 (explaining that defendant began his instant term of supervised release on May 12, 2022); Dkt. # 35 at 3 (sentencing defendant to a three-year term of supervised release). If Mr. Waters maintains his performance through May 2024, the Court will entertain a renewed motion for early termination of supervised release.
IT IS SO ORDERED.