United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
OPINION AND ORDER
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN CHIEF JUDGE
Defendant, Patrick O'Quinn, filed a Motion to Terminate
Supervised Release After Completion of One-Year of
Supervision Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) [ECF No.
71] on August 6, 2018. The Defendant's Motion is a
request for early termination of supervised release, as the
Court sentenced him to 48 months of supervised release. In
accordance with this Court's directive, the probation
officer filed a supervision report [ECF No. 37]. For the
reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court it is
not “satisfied that [early termination] is warranted by
the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of
justice, ” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), and thus will
not terminate the Defendant's term of supervised release.
Defendant pled guilty to distributing more than five grams of
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
On April 11, 2013, the Court sentenced the Defendant to 60
months imprisonment and 48 months of supervised release. The
Defendant completed his prison sentence and began the term of
supervised release on February 18, 2016. Since that time, the
probation officer has filed a noncompliance summary on March
30, 2016 [ECF No. 65] because the Defendant was arrested for
driving while suspended and tested positive for synthetic
marijuana and/or cocaine on three different dates; filed a
request to add location monitoring as a condition of
supervision on May 23, 2017 [ECF No. 67] because the
Defendant tested positive for marijuana and/or cocaine on
four different dates; and filed a noncompliance summary on
June 8, 2017 [ECF No. 69] because the Defendant lost his
housing and would not be able to comply with the location
monitoring condition. The supervising officer indicated that
he would increase contacts and meet with the Defendant weekly
during the pendency of his modification order. The officer
would also work with the Defendant to obtain suitable
housing, which was anticipated for on or about July 1, 2017,
at which time the Defendant would begin the Location
were no further filings until the Defendant filed his Motion
on August 6, 2018. However, according to the probation
officer's report filed in response to the Court's
directive, the Defendant failed to appear for an initial
hearing for driving while suspended charges in state court,
and a warrant has been issued. Additionally, the officer
conducted a home contact at the Defendant's residence on
August 29, 2018, and the Defendant preliminary tested
positive for marijuana, which the Defendant admitted to
smoking recently. The Defendant has maintained employment.
supervising probation officer does not recommend that the
Court grant the Defendant's Motion to Terminate
Defendant's motion to terminate supervised release is
based on 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), which allows a district
court to grant an early termination of a remaining term of
supervised release after one year of supervised release has
elapsed and if, after the court considers certain factors in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 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); United States v. Lowe, 632 F.3d 996, 998
(7th Cir. 2011). A court need not make explicit findings as
to each of the § 3553(a) factors, but the record must
reveal that the court gave consideration to the factors.
Lowe, 632 F.3d at 998 (citing United States v.
Carter, 408 F.3d 852, 854 (7th Cir. 2005), United
States v. Hale, 107 F.3d 526, 530 (7th Cir. 1997), and
United States v. Nonahal, 338 F.3d 668, 671 (7th
Cir. 2003)). “[T]he 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).
Defendant maintains that early termination is warranted
because he has adhered to all the conditions of his
supervised release, and is maintaining a responsible,
productive lifestyle. Although the Defendant has maintained
employment, he has not been compliant with all the conditions
of supervision for an entire year, as evidenced by the
continued use of marijuana as recently as late August 2018.
Moreover, the Court finds that the Defendant's past
conduct while on supervision necessitates a certain level of
scrutiny and oversight to ensure that he continues to engage
in productive activity and to avoid conduct that is
particularly risky to him, such as drug use. To the degree
the Defendant has been compliant, it is unclear whether that
should be attributed to the Defendant's self-discipline
as opposed to the diligent efforts of his probation officer.
The request for early termination appears, to the Court, to
be borne out the Defendant's desire for less
accountability than it does any compelling proof that
monitoring is no longer necessary for deterrence purposes.
The Defendant has made no showing that continued supervision
would hinder his rehabilitation, or impose on him any undue
hardship. The Court finds that the interests of justice would
not be served by discharging this Defendant from the
obligations that are imposed on him through supervised
release. If the Defendant's circumstances change before
the expiration of the term of supervised release, he may
renew his request.
reasons stated above, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the
Defendant's Motion to Terminate ...