United States v. Collado-Raudez, 1:15-cr-71-MOC-WCM-4. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20190904880
Visitors: 20
Filed: Sep. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 03, 2019
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendant's pro se Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release. The Court denies the motion at this time because, although defendant asserts that his supervising officer does not oppose early termination, defendant has not submitted a written statement from his supervising officer stating as such. For the Court to reach the merits of a request for early termination, defendant's motion must be accompanie
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendant's pro se Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release. The Court denies the motion at this time because, although defendant asserts that his supervising officer does not oppose early termination, defendant has not submitted a written statement from his supervising officer stating as such. For the Court to reach the merits of a request for early termination, defendant's motion must be accompanied..
More
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN, JR., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendant's pro se Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release.
The Court denies the motion at this time because, although defendant asserts that his supervising officer does not oppose early termination, defendant has not submitted a written statement from his supervising officer stating as such. For the Court to reach the merits of a request for early termination, defendant's motion must be accompanied by a statement from defendant's supervising officer explaining why defendant is a suitable candidate for early termination.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that defendant's pro se Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (#293) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Source: Leagle
