United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION TO TERMINATE
DEFENDANT'S TERM OF SUPERVISED RELEASE (DKT. NO.
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
2, 2006-almost twelve years ago-a grand jury indicted the
defendant on one count of traveling in interstate commerce to
engage in a sexual act with a person under the age of
eighteen. Dkt. No. 1. On August 3, 2006, the defendant
entered a guilty plea to that charge; Judge Charles N.
Clevert, Jr. accepted the plea. Dkt. No. 23. On November 3,
2006, Judge Clevert sentenced the defendant to serve
forty-six months in custody, followed by a term of ten years
of supervised release. Dkt. Nos. 31, 34. The defendant began
his term of supervision on May 4, 2010, dkt. no. 55 at 2; he
now has served seven years and ten months-just shy of eight
years-of that ten-year supervised release term.
sentencing hearing, Judge Clevert stated that he was imposing
an “extended” term of supervised release
“so that the Court retains the option to reduce
supervision if there are benchmarks which indicate that [the
defendant] can continue to live a pro-social life without
inappropriate contact with children.” Dkt. No. 55-1 at
15. Judge Clevert since has retired. The case has been
reassigned to this court, and the defendant now asks this
court to exercise the option to which Judge Clevert referred,
and “reduce” the ten-year term of supervision by
terminating the defendant's supervised release early.
Based on the information the defendant provided in his
renewed motion, the court will grant his request.
defendant filed his original motion for early termination of
release on December 8, 2017. Dkt. No. 55. The government did
not oppose that motion (despite the fact that the government
had urged the court to impose an extended supervision term at
sentencing). That motion explained that the defendant had no
conduct reports while serving his time in prison.
Id. at 2. Since being released in May 2010, he had
committed no crimes, id., and had committed no
violations of the conditions of his supervised release,
id. at 5. The motion indicates that the defendant
has no supervisory treatment needs- he has not consumed
alcohol in seven years, and had no other substance abuse
issues; he has no educational needs (having a high school
degree and some years of college); he has productive,
full-time employment (managing the family's steak house);
and has obtained treatment for the issue which gave rise to
the offense. Id. at 3-4, 6. He does not owe any
financial obligations. Id. at 8. He has been
involved in the community, and with charitable work.
Id. at 5-6.
all of these positives (and they are positives), the court
denied the defendant's original motion for early
termination. Dkt. No. 59. As the court explained, it takes
more than following the rules of supervision to obtain early
termination of supervised release. Id. at 3.
“Were it otherwise, every defendant who avoided
revocation would be eligible for early termination. Instead,
courts have typically granted early termination only in cases
with new or unforeseen circumstances, or where the
defendant's behavior has been exceptionally good.”
United States v. Washington, No. 01-cr-191, 2009 WL
482779 at *1 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 25, 2009).
defendant had indicated a “new or unforeseen”
circumstance in his original motion. He'd told the court
that his family's plan was for him to buy out his
parents' interest in the restaurant, but that he
couldn't get a loan to do so because he was on release.
The court denied the motion without prejudice, because it
needed more information about that circumstance.
defendant since has filed this renewed motion, and has
supplied the court with the information it requested. Dkt.
No. 60. The renewed motion explains that many lenders adhere
to a Small Business Administration rule that prohibits
lending money to a person currently on parole or probation.
Id. at 2-3. The motion is accompanied by a letter
from the president of the Milwaukee Economic Development
Corporation, verifying that the MEDC could not provide the
defendant with the loan he sought because conventional
lenders such as Tri City National Bank and Byline Bank would
not agree to partner such a loan. The reason the president
gave was that the defendant remained on supervision. Dkt. No.
court finds that the defendant has demonstrated, with this
information, that he faces a “new” circumstance-a
need, due to his parents' age, to buy out their interest
in the business, coupled with an inability to get a loan
(despite good credit) because he is on supervised release.
The defendant also has demonstrated that remaining on
supervised release constitutes a burden.
the court concludes that the 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors
warrant early termination. Regarding the nature and
circumstances of the offense: while the defendant's crime
was serious, the court understands that no sexual activity
took place. The defendant accepted responsibility for the
offense by pleading guilty, and has obtained treatment. With
regard to the history and characteristics of the defendant,
he has no prior criminal history, and no criminal activity
since conviction for the underlying offense; he has remained
gainfully employed since his release; he has not committed
any violations of supervised release, and has contributed to
the community. The sentence he already has served-four years
in prison and almost eight years on supervised release-has
demonstrated the seriousness of the offense, promoted respect
for the law and provided just punishment. The defendant's
behavior since release indicates that further supervision is
not necessary to deter him from committing new crimes, or to
protect the public. The defendant does not need educational,
vocational, or medical care from supervision. The defendant
owes no financial obligations (such as restitution). The
court does not believe that early termination after nearly
eight years will create an unwarranted sentencing disparity
among defendants with similar records who have been convicted
of similar conduct.
as with the original motion for early termination, the
government does not oppose the motion.
of these reasons, the court GRANTS the
defendant's renewed motion for early termination of
supervised release. Dkt. No. 60. The court
ORDERS that the defendant's term of