U.S. v. Martin

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GAIL MARTIN, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Apr 17, 2006

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 00-20089-01-CM (D. Kan. Apr. 17, 2006)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 00-20089-01-CM.

April 17, 2006

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge

This case comes before the court on a pro se motion filed by defendant Gail Martin, the Motion Requesting Modification of Supervised Release (Doc. 34). Defendant asks the court to order that her supervised release in this case run concurrently with her incarceration in the Topeka Correctional Facility on state court charges.

On June 21, 2001, the Honorable G. Thomas VanBebber sentenced defendant to forty-six months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The case was reassigned to the undersigned judge upon the death of Judge VanBebber. Defendant was released from federal custody on August 9, 2004, but was turned over to the Wyandotte County, Kansas Sheriff's Department because that office had filed a detainer. As previously noted, she is currently incarcerated in the Topeka Correctional Facility with an earliest possible release date of October 19, 2006.

Defendant requests that the court grant a "special exception" to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e). She claims that if the court grants her request, she will reside at an address in Kansas City, Missouri; she will seek immediate employment; and she will support her three dependent children.

The court concludes that a "special exception" to § 3524(e) is not warranted in this case. The statute only contemplates one "special exception" — that "[a] term of supervised release does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a Federal, State, or local crime unless the imprisonment is for a period of less than 30 consecutive days." Here, defendant's state court imprisonment is more than thirty days, and the court finds that the statutory exception does not apply. In any event, defendant has not given the court a compelling reason why her term of supervised release should run concurrent with her incarceration in the Topeka Correctional Facility.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's Motion Requesting Modification of Supervised Release (Doc. 34) is denied.