MEMORANDUM ORDER

LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge.

Having reviewed the parties' submissions (see, e.g., Cr. Act. No. 11-71-EPS D.I. 126, 127, 130, 131, 132), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' Pro Se Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (Cr. Act. No. 11-71 D.I. 126; Cr. Act. No. 12-18 D.I. 28; Cr. Act. No. 12-33 D.I. 19) is DENIED.

2. Defendants' Motion for Expedited Disposition (Cr. Act. No. 11-71 D.I. 132; Cr. Act. No. 12-18 D.I. 34; Cr. Act. No. 12-33 D.I. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT.

The Court has carefully reviewed the extensive submissions provided by Defendants. The Court also received written submissions expressing the government's opposition to early termination of Defendants' terms of supervised release, a position shared by the U.S. Probation Office, which is charged with supervising Defendants. The opposition to early termination rests largely on Defendants' history and practice with respect to the restitution obligations that were imposed as part of their release conditions. Defendants'"inconsistent and insubstantial" compliance with the restitution portion of their sentence (see Cr. Act. 11-71 D.I. 32) provides a wholly sufficient basis, in the context of these cases, on which to deny the request for early termination.

Additionally, the Court is concerned about the rhetoric and unfounded allegations Defendants have leveled against the government. (See, e.g., D.I. 131 at 3(accusing government of "sheer brazenness, arrogance," and "willfull[] submi[ssion] of . . . perjured document," as well as "vindictiveness"); id. at 5 ("[T]he Government has clearly, expressed it[s] disinterest for justice [and its] interests are simply unjustness, bias, and maximum punishment by law.")) The Court finds that Defendants have failed to show that their conduct and the interests of justice favor early termination of their supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).