Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. ABDULWAHAB, 4:08-CR-31-BO. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20120510a93 Visitors: 18
Filed: May 07, 2012
Latest Update: May 07, 2012
Summary: ORDER TERRENCE W. BOYLE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Termination of Supervised Release [DE 60]. The government has responded [DE 63], and the matter is ripe for ruling. 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(1) allows the Court to "terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant" after the defendant has served one year of supervised release provided certain conditions are met. First, the Court must consider certain factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
More

ORDER

TERRENCE W. BOYLE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Termination of Supervised Release [DE 60]. The government has responded [DE 63], and the matter is ripe for ruling.

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) allows the Court to "terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant" after the defendant has served one year of supervised release provided certain conditions are met. First, the Court must consider certain factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Second, the Court may terminate supervised release only "if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice." 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); see also United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 283 (4th Cir. 1999) ("The conjunction `and' used in the statute . . . clearly indicates that a district court must conclude that the early termination of supervised release is warranted by both the individual's conduct and also by the interest of justice").

As was the case in Defendant's earlier filed motion to terminate his supervised release [DE 55], Defendant in the instant motion provides no basis upon which the Court might grant such a motion. Defendant's motion merely argues that the Court has the authority to terminate his supervised release, but offers no contention regarding Defendant's conduct, the applicable § 3553 factors, nor whether the interest of justice would be served by terminating Defendant's supervised release. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer