U.S. v. DURKIN, 2:08-cr-18-FtM-29SPC. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20140521a81
Visitors: 7
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 Motion To Terminate Supervised Release (Doc. #41) filed on May 6, 2014. The Government's Response (Doc. #43) was filed on May 13, 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
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Motion To Terminate Supervised Release (Doc. #41) filed on May 6, 2014. The Government's Response (Doc. #43) was filed on May 13, 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)..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Motion To Terminate Supervised Release (Doc. #41) filed on May 6, 2014. The Government's Response (Doc. #43) was filed on May 13, 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 began in October, 2013, and expires in October 2016. Defendant has only been under supervision for approximately seven months, and has not completed her financial responsibilities with regard to restitution. Nothing identified by defendant suggests to the Court that the supervision should be terminated, particularly while restitution is still outstanding. 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 Motion to Terminate Supervised Release (Doc. #41), is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
