CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Daniel Shaw's Corrected Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release. (Doc. # 36.) Both the Government (Doc. # 40) and the United States Probation Office (Doc. # 41) oppose his request for early termination. For the following reasons, the Court grants Mr. Shaw's request.
On February 22, 2011, this Court sentenced Mr. Shaw to a term of imprisonment of 41 months, to be followed by a term of supervised release of four years, for his conviction of Armed Bank Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). (Doc. # 27 at 1-3.) After Mr. Shaw completed his term of imprisonment, he began his four-year term of supervised release on September 22, 2017. (Doc. # 41 at 1.) His term of supervised release is scheduled to terminate on September 22, 2021. (Id.)
On January 28, 2020, Mr. Shaw filed the instant request with the Court. (Doc. # 36.) He therein states that since his release from imprisonment in 2017, he has "successfully transitioned into community life," has not violated any conditions of supervised release, and has adhered completely to the requirements imposed by the Court and the Probation Office. (Id. at 2.) Moreover, Mr. Shaw represents that not one of his dozens of random urinalysis tests have returned with positive results for illegal substances (id.), and that he has paid all of his fines and restitution (id. at 4; Doc. # 36-2). He asserts that he is "fully rehabilitated," and that his professional and personal life further corroborate such rehabilitation. (Doc. # 36 at 7.)
As to his professional life, Mr. Shaw has maintained steady, successful employment while on supervised release—leading to the formation of his own flooring company named Shaw Flooring, LLC. (Id. at 2-4, 6.) Indeed, the Account Manager of one of his former employers, N & N Tile, Inc., wrote a letter assuring this Court that Mr. Shaw's services as an employee and subcontractor reflect a man who harbors "excellent work ethics, who is punctual, precise and honest." (Doc. # 36-1 at 1.) One reason that he seeks early termination is to foster the growth and success of his company by making it easier to seize out-of-state work opportunities. (Doc. # 36 at 6.)
With respect to his personal life, Mr. Shaw has maintained a successful residence, garnering the support from his current landlady who stated that he "has turned his life around and is an inspiration to anybody he encounters." (Id. at 4; Doc. # 36-3.) Furthermore, he has developed a healthy relationship with Ms. Candice Anderson in which he has learned the responsibilities and values of family life and parenthood. In addition to helping raise Ms. Anderson's seven-year old daughter as his own, Mr. Shaw and Ms. Anderson had their first child together in February of 2020.
Although the Government agrees that Mr. Shaw has complied with the terms of his supervised release, it opposes his request for early termination because his compliance and accomplishments alone do not constitute "exceptional circumstances" warranting early termination. (Doc. # 40 at 4-5.) Additionally, the Government contends that Mr. Shaw's "history of violence" and conduct relating to his convictions of armed robbery and an assault in another criminal matter
The Probation Office joins the Government in opposing Mr. Shaw's request for early termination based entirely on its application of the "criteria that have been approved by the Judicial Conference Committee on Criminal Law." (Doc. # 41 at 1.) The Probation Office too suggests that, due to his "history of violence," he is ineligible for a recommendation for early termination of his supervised release. (Id. at 1-2.)
In 1984, Congress "overhauled federal sentencing procedures to make prison terms more determinate and abolish the practice of parole." United States v. Haymond, 139 S.Ct. 2369, 2382 (2019). In lieu of parole, "Congress established the system of supervised release. But `[u]nlike parole,' supervised release wasn't introduced to replace a portion of the defendant's prison term, only to encourage rehabilitation after the completion of his prison term." Id. (quoting United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A(2)(b) (Nov. 2012)) (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted). "Congress intended supervised release to assist individuals in their transition to community life." United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59 (2000). Indeed, "[s]upervised release fulfills rehabilitative ends, distinct from those served by incarceration." Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D); United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §§ 5D1.3(c)-(e) (Nov. 1998); S. Rep. No. 98-225, p. 124 (1983)).
This Court has authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) to terminate a term of supervised release at any time after one year of supervised release if the Court is satisfied that two requirements are met. First, early termination must be "warranted by the conduct of the defendant released." 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). Second, early termination must be in "the interest of justice." Id. Whether to grant a motion to terminate a term of supervised release is a matter completely at the discretion of the Court. Rhodes v. Judisak, 676 F.3d 931, 933 (10th Cir. 2011).
Before making a decision to terminate a defendant's supervised release, a court must consider the statutory factors
For a defendant who requests early termination during the first 18 months of supervision, "the appropriateness of early termination must be based on the person's overall progress in meeting supervision objectives," which includes that the person (1) substantially satisfied the requirements of the court order; and (2) demonstrates a willingness and capability to remain lawful beyond the period of supervision." Id. § 360.20(b)(1)-(2). For a defendant who requests early termination after serving 18 or more months of supervised release, "there is a presumption in favor of recommending early termination for persons who meet the following criteria:"
Id. § 360.20(c)(1)-(6).
As a threshold matter, this Court addresses the discrepancy between which of two sets of criteria should apply to its consideration of motions for early termination of supervised release, and specifically, (1) which version of the Judicial Conference's policy should guide the Probation Office and courts; and (2) whether only "exceptionally good behavior" justifies early termination of supervised release. The Court considers each question in turn.
As to the first disagreement, the Probation Office and the Government both reference the guidance criterion set forth in § 380.10(b)(1)-(9) of the Judicial Conference's guidance policy. (Doc. # 40 at 5; Doc. # 41 at 1.) However, Mr. Shaw posits that both entities rely on an outdated version of the Judicial Conference's policy regarding early termination of supervised release. (Doc. # 45 at 6-7; Doc. # 47 at 1-3.) Citing to the updated policy, Mr. Shaw contends that he was entitled to the "presumption in favor of the Probation [Office] recommending early termination of his supervised release." (Doc. # 47 at 2-3 (emphasis in original).)
In March 2018, the Judicial Conference adopted the recommendation of the Criminal Law Committee, and approved a "substantial revision" to its policy, entitled "Supervision of Federal Offenders (Monograph 109)." Letter from James C. Duff, Dir., Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Transmittal 08-040 (July 2, 2018) (on file Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts). In a letter issued to the United States District Court Judges, Magistrate Judges, Federal Public Defenders, Chief Probation Officers, Chief Pretrial Services Officers, and Circuit Librarians, the Judicial Conference explained these revisions, several of which are pertinent to the instant Motion:
Id. at 1-2. The Judicial Conference also modified the factors used to guide courts and Probation Offices in determining whether early termination is warranted.
A comparison of how these factors were modified in 2018 demonstrates the significance of these revisions. The two versions provide:
This comparison reflects a shift in focus from coercing a person to act lawfully to monitoring and fostering a person's ability to self-manage lawful behavior and desire to act lawfully. In light of these changes and to advance the policy underlying them, the Court will rely upon § 360.20 of the Judicial Conference's policy regarding postconviction supervision for guidance as to whether early termination is warranted.
The second dispute may be quickly resolved. The Government correctly points out that some courts hold that mere compliance with supervision does not necessitate early termination because "it is merely what is expected of all people serving terms of supervised release." (Doc. # 40 at 3 (quoting Karacsonyi v. United States, 152 F.3d 918 (Table), 1998 WL 410273, at *1 (2d Cir. 1998) (unpublished)).) As such, some of these courts require persons under supervised release to demonstrate new or "changed circumstances, such as exceptionally good behavior[,]" to justify early termination.
The Court need not look beyond its own docket to conclude that it is unnecessary for all persons under supervised release to show exceptionally good behavior to warrant early termination. This Court has frequently granted motions for early termination without making that determination. See, e.g., United States v. Puhl, No. 18-cr-00078-CMA, Doc. # 10 (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2020); United States v. Lockwood, No. 19-cr-00201-CMA, Doc. # 10 (D. Colo. Feb. 25, 2020); United States v. Love, No. 16-cr-00001-CMA, Doc. # 10 (D. Colo. June 28, 2019); United States v. Turner, No. 07-cr-00172-CMA-24, Doc. # 1740 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2017); United States v. Hubbard, No. 10-cr-00082-CMA-2, Doc. # 459 (D. Colo. May 26, 2016). In some instances, this Court is confident that, after considering the required statutory factors and the interests of justice, a person's conduct shows that he or she has been rehabilitated and is ready to assimilate into society as a good-standing citizen. In others, a person's behavior is exceptional. But by no means does 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), or the statutory factors set forth therein, constrain a court's discretion to grant early termination to only those situations in which a person has exhibited "exceptional behavior." As such, the Court declines to adopt this immutable standard now.
After reviewing the history of this case, Mr. Shaw's instant request and corresponding exhibits, his reply brief and supplement, the responses from the Probation Office and the Government, and applicable law, the Court concludes that: (1) Mr. Shaw's behavior and conduct warrant an early termination of supervised release, and (2) that an early termination thereof is in the interests of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).
First, it is undisputed that Mr. Shaw has performed admirably while on supervised release. (Doc. # 41 at 2; Doc. # 40 at 4; Doc. # 36). Indeed, he has "satisfied all conditions of supervised release and maintained compliance throughout the duration of supervision" and has never tested positive for illegal substances while on supervision. (Doc. # 41 at 2; Doc. # 36 at 2-4, 4 n.3.) He has also maintained stable employment and a stable residence throughout supervision in addition to paying off all Court-ordered fines and restitution. (Doc. # 41 at 2; Doc. # 36 at 2-4; Doc. # 36-2.)
Moreover, Mr. Shaw has taken courageous strides to improve his life through the diligent pursuit of gainful employment and positive relationships with a significant other, her daughter, and, now, their family. Mr. Shaw not only has excelled in his employment with N & N Tile, Inc. and his father's company, but he also has taken the extra step of starting his own flooring company. (Doc. # 36 at 2-3, 6-7.) Starting a company requires wielding responsibilities of self-management, organization, and an unshakeable work ethic. Mr. Shaw has accepted these responsibilities and succeeded. N & N Tile, Inc. Account Manager Racheal Hall's recommendation and praise of Mr. Shaw's "excellent work ethic" (Doc. # 36-1), his reputation as "one of the top-flooring contractors in this region" (Doc. # 36-4), and other contractors' desire to hire Mr. Shaw's company are a testament to his success. (Doc. # 36 at 4.)
Additionally, Mr. Shaw's deep relationship with his partner Candice Anderson, her daughter and mother, and their newborn son demonstrates that he is motivated to remain a law-abiding citizen beyond the term of his supervised release. In fact, Mr. Shaw attributes his employment success to his desire to "provide a solid home for his family." (Doc. # 36 at 7; Doc. # 36-3; Doc. # 36-4.) This positive family relationship has also incentivized Mr. Shaw to stay away from substance abuse. (Doc. # 36 at 3.) Mr. Shaw's employment achievements, dedication to becoming a positive role model and outstanding citizen, and encouraging relationships with his family and significant other are commendable. As a result, Mr. Shaw's behavior and conduct merit early termination of supervised release.
Furthermore, the general interests that undergird sentencing decisions will not be impeded by this early termination, especially given his "low/moderate" risk category on the Post-Conviction Risk Assessment conducted by the Probation Office. See (Doc. # 41 at 1.) The criteria identified by the Judicial Conference on Criminal Law also weigh in favor of early termination. To this point, the Government and the Probation Office both oppose early termination on the grounds that Mr. Shaw has a "history of violence" as reflected in his criminal record. (Doc. # 41 at 2; Doc. # 40 at 5.) However, for the reasons discussed above, this point relates to an
In sum, Mr. Shaw's conduct evinces a person who has been rehabilitated and is ready to fully transition into society as a law-abiding citizen. As such, early termination is of supervised release is warranted and in the interest of justice. 18 U.S.C.§ 3583(e)(1). The Court extends its heartful congratulations to Mr. Shaw and wishes him luck as he endeavors to live a fruitful and fulfilling life.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS that Mr. Shaw's Corrected Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. # 36) is GRANTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Probation Office is directed forthwith to process the early termination of Mr. Shaw's supervised release.