United States v. Slay, 4:08CR00315-23. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190709905
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 08, 2019
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR. , District Judge . The defendant, Marion Luches Slay, has filed a motion requesting termination of supervised release. In support of his motion, the defendant reports that he has completed over three years of his five-year term of supervised release, that he has remained gainfully employed, and that he has had no encounters with law enforcement. The Court notes that while the defendant is currently in compliance with the terms and conditions of supervision, at
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR. , District Judge . The defendant, Marion Luches Slay, has filed a motion requesting termination of supervised release. In support of his motion, the defendant reports that he has completed over three years of his five-year term of supervised release, that he has remained gainfully employed, and that he has had no encounters with law enforcement. The Court notes that while the defendant is currently in compliance with the terms and conditions of supervision, at t..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR., District Judge.
The defendant, Marion Luches Slay, has filed a motion requesting termination of supervised release. In support of his motion, the defendant reports that he has completed over three years of his five-year term of supervised release, that he has remained gainfully employed, and that he has had no encounters with law enforcement.
The Court notes that while the defendant is currently in compliance with the terms and conditions of supervision, at the time of sentencing he was designated a career offender due his history of drug distribution convictions. The Court also notes that the defendant was convicted of a serious offense involving the distribution of substantial amounts of cocaine in the Savannah area. The Court acknowledges the defendant has performed well on supervised release thus far; however, the Court does not consider the defendant a suitable candidate for early termination at this time.
The defendant's motion for early termination of supervised release is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
