Opinion
CRIMINAL NO. 3:05-548-CMC
05-05-2015
United States of America, v. Nigel Watson, Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendant's motion requesting termination of supervised release. ECF No. 1395. Both the United States Attorney and the United Probation Office have notified this court that they oppose termination of Defendant's supervised release at this time.
Title 18 United States Code Section 3583(e) provides that
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)--Considerations contained in § 3553 include, inter alia, the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; the ability to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner. 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
(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 . . . .
"The plain language of the statute illustrates that § 3583(e), in the typical case, allows a conduct-based inquiry into the continued necessity for supervision after the individual has served one full year on supervised release." United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282-83 (4th Cir. 1999). However, the statute
is not exclusively limited to considerations of conduct. The language of the statute notes that the district court 'may' terminate supervised release 'if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.' The phrase 'the interest of justice' does give the district court latitude to consider a broad range of factors in addition to an individual's behavior in considering whether to terminate the supervised release period.Id. at 283 (citation omitted).
Defendant maintains that since his release from imprisonment, he has "continued on a very straight and narrow path." Mot. at 1. However, Defendant recently agreed to a three-month period of home confinement with electronic monitoring based upon several positive drug tests during his period of supervision. Defendant's motion is denied without prejudice to Defendant's right to again seek termination of supervision at a later date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
May 5, 2015