ORDER

DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.

Before the Court is defendant's motion for early termination of supervised release term (Doc. 146). The defendant asserts that he is entitled to an early termination of his term of supervised release because he satisfies both the statutory and advisory criteria for early termination (Doc. 146). However, the government filed a response opposing early termination based on defendant's recent conduct in addition to the seriousness of his underlying conviction and criminal record (Doc. 152). Based on the following, the motion for early termination is DENIED.

Defendant avows that he has paid his special assessment and restitution, that he has completed four of his five years of supervised release, and "has not been cited for any unwarranted conduct" (Doc. 146). However, the government has consulted with the Probation Office, which is not in support of the motion for early termination, and both request that this Court deny due to recent events. (Doc. 152).

Upon review of the record, the Court is persuaded that it would be in the defendant's, as well as the community's, best interest to remain on supervision. Defendant has engaged in conduct1 which, even though does not provide sufficient evidence for the probation office to present a petition to the court, brings into question whether the defendant is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of his supervision. Defendant's conduct certainly creates a question in the Court's mind of the motivation for the timing of defendant's request. In light of such conduct, the Court finds the defendant needs to remain on supervision to be monitored and subject to the terms and conditions of his supervision for a longer time. Accordingly, the motion for early termination is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.