U.S. v. RICHARDSON, 11-CR-220. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20151117c34
Visitors: 18
Filed: Nov. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 16, 2015
Summary: ORDER GREGORY L. FROST , District Judge . This matter came on for consideration upon Defendant's Motion to Terminate Supervised Release (ECF No. 112) filed on October 29, 2015 and upon the Government's Opposition to Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 113) filed on November 13, 2015. The Court finds Defendant's Motion to be not well taken and the Court DENIES the same. Although Defendant has been progressing in a positive manner while on supervised release, Defendant has a restitution balance
Summary: ORDER GREGORY L. FROST , District Judge . This matter came on for consideration upon Defendant's Motion to Terminate Supervised Release (ECF No. 112) filed on October 29, 2015 and upon the Government's Opposition to Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 113) filed on November 13, 2015. The Court finds Defendant's Motion to be not well taken and the Court DENIES the same. Although Defendant has been progressing in a positive manner while on supervised release, Defendant has a restitution balance o..
More
ORDER
GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge.
This matter came on for consideration upon Defendant's Motion to Terminate Supervised Release (ECF No. 112) filed on October 29, 2015 and upon the Government's Opposition to Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 113) filed on November 13, 2015.
The Court finds Defendant's Motion to be not well taken and the Court DENIES the same.
Although Defendant has been progressing in a positive manner while on supervised release, Defendant has a restitution balance of $392,355.18. Defendant has refused to sign a consent agreement obligating Defendant to continue to make payments on the restitution obligation if Defendant is terminated from supervised release. It is inconceivable to this Court that Defendant has refused to sign the consent agreement. Restitution is an important component of the sentence imposed. Defendant's unwillingness to acknowledge his continuing obligation to make restitution leads this Court to believe that Defendant is not serious about making the victims of his crimes whole. As a result this Court finds that Defendants is not a suitable candidate for early termination of supervised release.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
