United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER
ADELMAN District Judge
February 8, 2011, a jury convicted defendant Mervyn Rutley of
bank fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft. On May
6, 2011, I sentenced him to a total of 72 months in prison
and five years' supervised release. As conditions of
supervision, he was directed, inter alia, not to
participate in any form of gambling or patronize any gambling
facilities; not to open new lines of credit without the prior
approval of the supervising probation officer; and to provide
access to all financial information requested by the
probation officer. On June 1, 2011, I issued an amended
judgment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664 setting
restitution at $205, 247.76. Defendant filed a notice of
appeal, but the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as
frivolous. United States v. Rutley, 482 Fed.Appx.
175 (7th Cir. 2012).
from prison on January 8, 2016,  on December 30, 2016,
defendant filed a motion for early termination of his
supervised release. The government responded in opposition,
and I permitted defendant to reply. I now deny the motion.
district court may grant early termination if: (1) the
defendant has completed at least one year of supervision; (2)
the government has been given notice and an opportunity to be
heard; and (3) the court finds that termination is in the
interest of justice based on the defendant's conduct and
the pertinent sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a). E.g., United States v. Malone, No.
09-CR-248, 2016 BL 414054, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2016)
(citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)). The first two criteria are
met in the present case; the issue is whether termination
would be in the interest of justice.
district court has wide discretion in determining whether to
terminate an individual's term of supervised
release.” United States v. Hook, 471 F.3d 766,
771 (7th Cir. 2006). The court must consider the
applicable § 3553(a) factors, although it need not make
explicit findings as to each one. United States v .
Lowe, 632 F.3d 996, 998 (7th Cir. 2011). In
considering the defendant's conduct on supervision,
courts have generally required more than mere compliance
before granting early termination. E.g., Folks
v. United States, 733 F.Supp.2d 649, 652 (M.D. N.C.
2010) (collecting cases). Courts have instead tended to grant
such relief in cases where the defendant's behavior has
been exceptionally good, where supervision hinders rather
than fosters the defendant's rehabilitation, or where
some new or unforeseen circumstance otherwise supports a
reduction of the original supervision term. Malone,
2016 BL 414054, at *1 (collecting cases). The defendant bears
the burden of demonstrating that early termination is
motion, defendant indicates that since his release he has
enrolled in college, maintained a stable residence and
employment, attended church, and complied with the conditions
set by the court. He attaches to his motion various letters
response, the government indicates that, based on contact
with the probation office, there have been concerns with
defendant's conduct, including the opening of new lines
of credit and acquiring a Potawatomi casino player's
card. The government also contends that defendant should be
kept on supervision to facilitate the payment of restitution;
according to the government, defendant has paid just $828.45
towards the $205, 247.76 balance. In reply, defendant
indicates that he has paid somewhat more than that; that he
has closed two previous lines of credit and no new lines have
been opened without the awareness of the probation office;
and that, with his educational pursuits, employment, and
internship requirements he has little time for leisure
activities. He concludes that the stress and complications of
probation detract from his ability to focus on continued
defendant is to be commended for his education, employment,
and community involvement, as well as his overall compliance,
the court expects those on supervision to follow the rules,
work or attend school, and attend to their responsibilities.
E.g., United States v. Witzlib, No.
13-CR-99, 2016 BL 159146, at *3 (E.D. Wis. May 18, 2016)
(collecting cases). Defendant fails to show that his conduct
has been unusual or extraordinary. While the requirements of
supervision no doubt require some time and attention,
defendant also fails to show that supervision materially
interferes with his rehabilitation. Nor does he show that
supervision unreasonably interferes with travel to, for
instance, visit family or attend church services.
pertinent § 3553(a) factors also support continued
supervision. The fraud scheme involved in this case went on
over a period of many years and involved identity theft,
unauthorized transfers from the bank accounts of others, and
the continued receipt of veteran's benefits awarded to
defendant's deceased father. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).
Defendant has a prior record for this type of activity -
including offenses involving theft, fraud, and deception -
dating back to the mid-1980s, and he was on probation during
part of the time he committed the instant offense. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1). Continued supervision is necessary to
protect the public and deter. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B)
& (C). It is also necessary to ensure that
defendant's correctional treatment needs, including any
issues with gambling, can be addressed. 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(2)(D). Finally, continued supervision is necessary to
ensure that he pays restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7).
IT IS ORDERED that defendant's ...