From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Johnson

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Apr 2, 2024
No. 17-20048 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 2, 2024)

Opinion

17-20048

04-02-2024

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LEE ARTIS JOHNSON, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND PROBATION [57]

NANCY G. EDMUNDS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On May 16, 2017, Defendant Lee Artis Johnson pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (ECF No. 21.) On October 3, 2017, the Court imposed a below guideline sentence of 72 months of imprisonment to be followed by a term of supervised release of 36 months. (ECF No. 28.) Defendant was released from BOP custody on August 12, 2022. Defendant now seeks early termination of supervised release, stating that he maintains employment, has not had any police contact or violations, and seeks to move on with his life. (ECF No. 57.)

“Supervised release is part of a sentence.” United States v. Krul, 774 F.3d 371, 374 (6th Cir. 2014). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), however, the Court may terminate a term of supervised release any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release if the Court “is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.” Additional factors the Court considers are the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7). See § 3583(e). “[G]enerally, early termination of supervised release under § 3583(e)(1) will be proper only when the sentencing judge is satisfied that new or unforeseen circumstances warrant it.” United States v. Melvin, 978 F.3d 49, 53 (3d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks, citation, and italics omitted).

Here, Defendant has not identified any new or unforeseen circumstances that would warrant early termination of supervised release. Because the Court does not find that the relevant sentencing factors weigh in favor of the relief he seeks, Defendant's motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on April 2, 2024, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Ryan

Case Manager


Summaries of

United States v. Johnson

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Apr 2, 2024
No. 17-20048 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 2, 2024)
Case details for

United States v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LEE ARTIS JOHNSON, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Apr 2, 2024

Citations

No. 17-20048 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 2, 2024)