Summary
granting early termination of probation where the defendant completed a term of home confinement and suffered significant collateral consequences as a result of his conviction
Summary of this case from United States v. NelsonOpinion
No. 01 Cr. 67 (TPG)
September 17, 2002
OPINION
On March 22, 2001 I sentenced defendant to three years probation, six months of which were to be served in home confinement. I imposed a fine of $1,000 and a special assessment was levied amounting to $100 for each count, for a total of $200. At the time I imposed sentence I granted a downward departure of one level so that home confinement could be served rather than a short prison sentence.
Defendant now moves under 18 U.S.C. § 3564(c) to have his probation terminated. He has served the six months home confinement and has further served nearly a year and a half of his three year probation term. The Government opposes the motion.
The motion is granted, and probation will be terminated as of September 22, 2002, exactly 1 1/2 years from the date of sentence.
There are several reasons why the probation is being terminated early. First, defendant suffered an enormous penalty as a result of this conviction, by being disbarred from the practice of law. Also, in addition to the $1,000 fine imposed in this case, he has paid a $50,000 fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
What has occurred during the period of his probation thus far is that defendant's conduct has been exemplary in that he has complied in every way with the conditions of probation and has avoided any semblance of further unlawful conduct. A further circumstance, which could not have been known at the time the sentence was imposed, is that despite the most vigorous and diligent efforts to obtain new employment commensurate with his talents, defendant has had repeated rejections and setbacks. He is now attempting to embark on his own business as a real estate consultant. It is an entirely lawful business, but it is not the kind of steady employment which he has repeatedly sought to obtain.
In my view, defendant has been penalized enough. The conviction itself is a severe punishment, together with the criminal fine and the payment to the SEC. He has served his home confinement. He will have served 1 1/2 years of probation at the time it is terminated.
It is of value both to defendant and his family and also to the community for him to obtain productive employment which utilizes his considerable talents. It is distinctly possible that the termination of defendant's probation will assist in this regard. Defendant has no need of further probation supervision. Continued probation has no real value as far as law enforcement or any other community interest is concerned.
Accordingly, defendant's probation will terminate as of September 22, 2002.
SO ORDERED.