United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION
OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
S. Lasnik United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on defendant's
“Motion for Early Termination of Supervised
Release.” Dkt. # 8. Having reviewed defendant's
memorandum and exhibits, the input from Unites States
Probation Office (“USPO”), and the remainder of
the record, the Court DENIES defendant's motion and
instead adopts USPO's recommendation that defendant's
lifetime term of supervised release be reduced to ten years.
pleaded guilty in 2010 to single counts of attempted
possession of child pornography and destruction of evidence.
Dkt. # 11 ex. C, at 1. He was subsequently sentenced to 42
months of incarceration and a life term of supervised
release. Id. Since his release from prison,
defendant has moved from Florida to Washington, enrolled in a
Masters of Natural Resources Management program, maintained a
stable residence, cultivated several healthy social
relationships, and become the owner of two rental properties.
Dkt. # 9 at 1-2.
defendant has completed all court-ordered counseling and
continues to report twice yearly for polygraph examinations.
Id. at 3. Defendant's clinical psychologist
reports that defendant shows “no indication of ongoing
deviant interest directed towards minor females” and
“is considered to be at low risk for sexual
re-offense.” Defendant scored a zero out of seven on
the Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool
(“CPORT”) measure, meaning that he has about a
2.4% probability of sexual recidivism within five years
following his initial offense in 2008. Dkt. # 9-1 at 1-3.
Defendant also scored a zero out of twenty-four on the
“Stable 2007” measure, meaning he has about a 1%
chance of sexual recidivism within one year and a 2.6% chance
within four years. Id. Defendant has no criminal
history prior to the commission of the crimes for which he is
now serving, and has never violated the conditions of his
release. Dkt. # 8 at 3.
clinical psychologist states that “it would be
reasonable for the court to consider termination of federal
parole supervision.” Id. at 4. Alternatively,
defendant's probation officer believes that a reduction
in defendant's supervised release to ten years from life
would be more appropriate. Id. at 3. Contrary to
USPO's recommendation, the government maintains that the
Court does not have the authority to reduce a term of
supervision under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). Dkt. # 11 at 4.
It argues that the statute “provides only for the early
termination and discharge of a defendant or the modification,
reduction, or enlargement of ‘the conditions
of supervised release.'” Dkt. # 11 at 4 n.3
(citations omitted) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e)(2)). In
taking this position, the government has failed to consult
the appropriate authority and instead bases its contention on
a narrow reading of statutory language alone.
contrary, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that:
Section 3583(e) provides the district court with retained
authority to revoke, discharge, or modify terms and
conditions of supervised release following its initial
imposition of a supervised release term in order to account
for new or unforeseen circumstances. Occasionally, changed
circumstances-for instance, exceptionally good behavior by
the defendant or a downward turn in the defendant's
ability to pay a fine or restitution imposed as conditions of
release-will render a previously imposed term or condition of
release either too harsh or inappropriately tailored to serve
the general punishment goals of section 3553(a).
United States v. Miller, 205 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th
Cir. 2000) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v.
Lussier, 104 F.3d 32, 36 (2d Cir. 1997)). The Second
Circuit further explains that:
In such cases, the court may invoke either subsection (1),
which “works to the advantage of the defendant, ”
or subsection (2), which “can be employed either to the
defendant's advantage or his disadvantage, ” to
discharge the defendant from supervised release, to modify
and make less demanding the conditions of release, or to
reduce the length of the term of release.
Lussier, 104 F.3d at 36 (emphasis added) (citation
omitted) (quoting United States v. Truss, 4 F.3d
437, 438-39 (6th Cir. 1993)). Moreover, the advisory
committee's note to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
32.1(b) asserts that “[t]he sentencing court is given
the authority to shorten the term or end probation [or
supervised release] early upon its own motion without a
hearing.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 advisory
committee's note to 32.1(b).
foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for early
termination of supervised release, Dkt. # 8, is DENIED.
USPO's recommended reduction to ten years from
defendant's current life term of supervised release is
adopted without a hearing. The Court HEREBY ORDERS that
defendant's term of supervised release be reduced to ten
 Committee note to Rule 32.1(b), added
in 1979, mentions probation only. This is because Congress
did not institute supervised release until 1984. The Rule has
since been renamed and amended to apply equally to both
probation and supervised ...