U.S. v. RODGERS, 2:10-cr-15-FtM-29DNF. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20140521a82
Visitors: 16
Filed: May 20, 2014
Latest Update: May 20, 2014
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on defendant's letter filed on April 30, 2014, and construed as a Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. #35). The Government's Response (Doc. #36) was filed on May 8, 2014. The motion is opposed by both the United States Probation Office and the prosecution. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. Early termination of supervised release is permissible if, after considering t
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on defendant's letter filed on April 30, 2014, and construed as a Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. #35). The Government's Response (Doc. #36) was filed on May 8, 2014. The motion is opposed by both the United States Probation Office and the prosecution. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. Early termination of supervised release is permissible if, after considering th..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's letter filed on April 30, 2014, and construed as a Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. #35). The Government's Response (Doc. #36) was filed on May 8, 2014. The motion is opposed by both the United States Probation Office and the prosecution. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
Early termination of supervised release is permissible if, after considering the relevant factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court concludes that early termination is warranted by the conduct of defendant and the interests of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). Defendant's three year term of supervised release expires in April, 2015, but defendant seeks early termination in order to "move on and start my career," apparently in cosmetology. The Probation Officer reports there are no known hindrances due to defendant's supervised release, and defendant has identified none. The Court finds that the facts submitted by defendant do not establish that termination of supervision prior to the scheduled termination is warranted or in the interests of justice.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant's letter, deemed a Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. #35), is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
