United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION
OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for
Early Termination of Supervised Release. Dkt. #79. For the
reasons below, the Court DENIES
a plea of guilty to the crimes of Bank Burglary, Interstate
Transportation of a Stolen Aircraft, Interstate and Foreign
Transportation of a Stolen Firearm, Fugitive in Possession of
a Firearm, Piloting an Aircraft Without a Valid Airman's
Certificate, and Interstate Transportation of a Stolen
Vessel, the Defendant was sentenced to 78 months of
imprisonment to be followed by a term of three years of
supervised release and an obligation to pay $1, 336, 429.11
in restitution. Defendant now asks this Court to relieve him
of the remaining approximately five months of supervision.
Defendant predicates the basis for his release upon two
primary justifications. The first includes his desire to
travel out of this Court's jurisdiction to take advantage
of “work opportunities” that have been available
to him for the last year. He represents that these
opportunities would enable him to satisfy his restitution
obligations sooner. Dkt. #79, p. 2. The second justification
is his desire to travel outside of the United States to visit
friends domestically and internationally in London, France,
China or Korea. Dkt. #79-3, p. 2.
the first basis for his request, the Court confirms that it
is a noble assertion that the Defendant wishes to take
advantage of work opportunities to pay his restitution at a
quicker pace. The Defendant has failed, however, to provide
this Court with a single declaration, communication or
confirmed offer from any person or entity verifying or
providing any detail or specifics on whether the
Defendant's engagement with these TV shows were real
opportunities or just exploratory communications. At best, we
have defense counsel's terse summary of “talks to
be a potential participant in the hit TV show
‘Alone,' seen on the History Channel.” Dkt.
#89, p. 2.
these “talks” would bear fruit for the Defendant
or not, the real issue is that according to the United States
Probation Officer, the Defendant never made a specific
request asking for approval to take advantage of these or any
work opportunities if they existed in reality in the first
place. In fact, Mr. Harris-Moore's Probation Officer has
confirmed that the Defendant did not request any travel
permits for work or vacation travel prior to filing the
instant motion. At best, the record suggests that Mr.
Harris-Moore was seeking a transfer of jurisdiction for
supervision, which is significantly different than a routine
travel authorization request. Transfers of jurisdiction
require judicial approval from this Court, as well as the
state for which transfer is being requested.
assigned probation officer has additionally confirmed that
the Defendant only recently advised the probation office of
any specific travel requests and there is no record that even
these were denied by any U.S. Probation Officer. At best we
have the assigned probation officer representing that he was
willing to consider and possibly approve travel requests
outside this district to accommodate Mr. Harris- Moore's
employment and travel endeavors had he only asked before
filing this motion.
also of interest to this Court that nowhere in Mr.
Harris-Moore's letter to this Court did he personally
represent that he had requested vacation travel or work
travel that was denied.
than seek approval for travel first from his probation
officer, Defendant elected to supersede that process and make
direct application to this Court, bypassing what this Court
would expect of any probationer: report to one's
probation officer, advise of any change in circumstances or
modifications in supervision before seeking relief from the
Court. This is what is expected of any person under
conditions of supervision. This process was not utilized by
the Defendant. Instead, the Defendant is asking this Court to
terminate his supervision outright or place him on
unsupervised probation reporting directly to this Court. This
request is untenable and would usurp one of the primary
duties of a probation officer, which is to supervise
lawyer represents a series of exchanges that Mr. Harris-Moore
ostensibly had with his U.S. Probation Officer. Dkt. #84.
Each of these assertions has been denied by Mr.
Harris-Moore's assigned probation officer. Dkt. #88.
Thus, the Court is left with Mr. Harris Moore's
attorney's beliefs of exchanges her client had with his
probation officer, the U.S. Probation Officer's denial of
the accuracy of those representations, and Mr.
Harris-Moore's letter to the Court which lacks any
specifics about any requests to travel or history of denials
for travel. This record does not support granting the
Court is pleased to be advised of how well Mr. Harris-Moore
has performed on supervision, including refraining from the
use of drugs and alcohol, not associating with criminals, and
engaging in otherwise law-abiding behavior. While his conduct
has been laudable, particularly regarding the amount of
restitution he has paid, remaining in compliance with
conditions of supervision is what is expected of every
Harris-Moore has the perception that the only way he can
serve as an example for others is with early termination of
his supervision so he can enjoy “…the freedom to
travel unencumbered, as well as the freedom to conduct
business.” Dkt. #79-3, p. 3. He fails to appreciate
that another way to serve as an example to others is to
satisfy his complete sentence for the myriad of egregious
crimes he committed and damage he did to the lives of a
number of victims. Mr. Harris-Moore can just as well be the
example he professes when he is released from supervision in
five months. Upon completion of his entire sentence and
continued effort to deliver on his promise to make everyone
whole, Mr. ...