Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: 15-00145-BAJ-RLB
08-20-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL ALMANZA
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. 518) filed by Defendant, Michael Almanza. The United States has taken no position regarding the motion (Doc. 519). Because the Court is without statutory authority to end supervised release prior to the expiration of one year, the motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 7, 2017, the Court sentenced Defendant to thirty-six months of imprisonment followed by a supervised release period of one year. (Doc. 482). He began his term of supervised release on July 13, 2018 after being released from Bureau of Prisons custody. Defendant represents that he is from California and has no connections to Louisiana other than his arrest and conviction. (Doc. 518 at ¶ 3). He states that none of the Federal Judicial Districts in California would accept him for supervised monitoring and that he is forced to live in hotels throughout the Middle District of Louisiana. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5). Plaintiff asks the Court to terminate his supervised release early, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
Defendant had been in federal custody since March 17, 2016, when the Magistrate Judge ordered Defendant detained pending trial. (Doc. 131). --------
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Court, after considering relevant factors, may "terminate a term of supervised release . . . any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release. § 3583(e) (emphasis added).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant admits that he has not served one year of supervised release, but argues that his "extraordinary circumstances" warrants relief. (Doc. 518 at ¶ 5). However, § 3583(e) does not offer the Court the discretion to terminate supervised release prior to Defendant serving one year of supervised release; it can do so only after Defendant had served one year of supervised release. § 3583; see also United States v. Lares-Meraz, 452 F.3d 352, 355 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) ("A district court may have . . . the authority to terminate obligations of supervised release, after the expiration of one year of supervised release, under § 3583(e)(1)."). Because one year has not passed since Defendant began his term of supervised release, the Court may not terminate his supervision.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERD that the Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. 518) is DENIED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 20th day of August, 2018.
/s/ _________
BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA