United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant David Ray Newman's motion
for early termination of supervision, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(1). (ECF No. 156). The government opposes this
motion. (ECF No. 157). Probation has no opinion on the
present motion. (ECF No. 156). Mr. Newman has filed a reply
to the government's opposition. (ECF No. 163).
March 16, 2010, defendant pled guilty to one count of bank
robbery. (ECF Nos. 13, 34). On July 20, 2010, defendant was
sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment, which was ordered to
run concurrently with case 2:09-cr-0426-JCM-PAL, and three
years of supervised release. (ECF Nos. 70, 74).
Newman was released from custody on July 20, 2014, to a
halfway house and then later was subject to home confinement.
(ECF No. 156). Defendant began his supervised release term in
January 2015. (Id.).
avers that he has been productive while confined.
(Id.). Specifically, he indicates that he earned his
GED and completed various programs, such as the 12-hour Drug
Education Program and the OSHA Training course.
further indicates that, upon his release, he has taken
strides to build structure in his life, securing employment
with Highway Striping & Signs, LLC. (Id.).
Moreover, he asserts that he is current on his child support,
has paid his restitution, “has never received any
violation modifications or petitions while on supervision,
” and is focused on his sobriety. (Id. at 4).
In short, Mr. Newman states that “there are no
additional or necessary services that Probation can provide
to him. [He] has successfully reintegrated back into the
the government argues that, while it approves of Mr.
Newman's efforts, his circumstances do not warrant early
termination of supervised release. (ECF No. 157) (citing
United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir.
support of this position, the government discusses
defendant's behavior while on pretrial release.
(Id.). Specifically, the government references
defendant's failure to appear for a drug test, failure to
live with his parents, and his participation in a separate
bank robbery. (Id.). Ultimately, the government
argues that the best interests of justice suggest that this
court impose the full length of supervision the court
previously considered necessary for defendant's reentry
into society. (Id.) (citing United States v.
McComb, No. 3:11-CR-00050-RCJ, 2014 WL 4636034, at *1
(D. Nev. Sept. 16, 2014)).
recently, the government has filed a notice that Mr. Newman
“has not paid his outstanding forfeiture money
judgments in the amounts of $1, 152 and $3, 950 for a total
of $5, 102 to the United States.” (ECF No. 158 at 1).
Defendant's reply indicates some confusion as to what
entity was to receive payment for his financial obligations
and that he has actually overpaid his restitution and special
penalty assessment balances by $851.18. (ECF No. 163). Mr.
Newman argues that outstanding financial penalties should not
prevent the court from granting his requested relief.
to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the court may, after considering
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), terminate
supervised release after one year “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. §
mitigated by the passage of time, the history of the
defendant and the circumstances of the relevant offense weigh
against granting the motion because defendant accomplished
two bank robberies, and one of those robberies occurred while
defendant was on pretrial release. 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(1); see also (ECF No. 157).
interest in sentences that deter criminal conduct also weighs
against an early termination of supervised release, despite
Mr. Newman's recent positive progress. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). However, the consideration of
whether supervision would “protect the public from
further crimes of the defendant” appears minimally
persuasive in this case. See 18 U.S.C. §
although it appears that Mr. Newman actually overpaid his
restitution balance (ECF No. 163), the government has
indicated that Mr. Newman is subject to unsatisfied
forfeiture money judgments. (ECF No. 158); see also
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7).
noteworthy here is defendant's intention to maintain his
sobriety. See (ECF No. 156). The court applauds Mr.
Newman's efforts to improve his life. Yet the court
believes that supervised release, although inconvenient, will
aid Mr. Newman's achievement of that goal. See
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D). Furthermore, denial of the
motion will not promote inconsistent or unnecessary terms of
sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)-(6).
the court, considering 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), will not
grant defendant's motion. Mr. Newman has made
considerable progress and should be commended, but ...