United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Daryl Shears'
motion for early termination of supervised release (Dkt. No.
322) and the Government's motion to seal (Dkt. No. 325).
Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and
the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument
unnecessary and hereby DENYS Defendant's motion (Dkt. No.
322) and GRANTS the Government's motion (Dkt. No. 325)
for the reasons explained herein.
August 14, 2009, Defendant was sentenced to 188 months of
imprisonment on one count of conspiracy to distribute
cocaine. (Dkt. No. 257.) On March 16, 2015, the Court reduced
Defendant's sentence to 131 months by retroactively
applying the U.S. Sentencing Commission's 2014 Drug
Quantity Table amendments to Defendant's initial
sentencing. (Dkt. No. 318 at 1-3.) On April 27, 2017, upon
release from custody, Defendant began a five-year term of
supervised release. (Dkt. No. 322 at 2.) Since that time, he
has had two probation violations for the use of marijuana, on
or about December 13, 2018 and March 8, 2019. (Dkt. Nos. 320,
321.) He has maintained a stable job, home, and supportive
relations with his family while on supervised release. (Dkt.
No. 322 at 2.) His job is full-time with good pay, but is
seasonal and without benefits. (Id. at 5.)
completing approximately two-and-a-half years of supervised
release, Defendant now moves for early termination of
supervision, in part because he believes that his supervision
status precludes him from obtaining permanent employment.
(Id. at 5-6.) Both the Government and Probation
Department object to early termination. (See Dkt.
No. 324.) The Government also filed Defendant's
presentence report (Dkt. No. 326) with its response brief,
which it asks the Court to maintain under seal. (See
Dkt. No. 325.)
Court may terminate a defendant's term of supervised
release after the completion of 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. § 3583(e)(1). In deciding whether early
termination is appropriate, the Court must consider several
factors, including the nature and circumstances of the
offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant,
the need to deter criminal conduct, the need to protect the
public from further crimes, and the need to avoid disparity
among similarly situated defendants. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)
(citing to factors listed by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a));
United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 820 (9th Cir.
Court considers the § 3553(a) factors in light of
Defendant's case. Defendant's offense was serious, as
it involved a high quantity of cocaine and Defendant's
attempt to hide evidence with his minor stepson.
(See Dkt. No. 318 at 1-2.) The Court acknowledges
Defendant's addiction and difficult upbringing as
underlying influences on his criminal behavior. (Dkt. No. 322
at 3-4.) That said, Defendant has an extensive criminal
history, with several similar drug convictions prior to this
case. (See Dkt. Nos. 230 at 7, 235 at 10-20.)
has completed the Residential Drug Abuse Program and has not
relapsed on cocaine or other hard drugs. (Dkt. No. 322 at 4.)
However, he has had two marijuana violations in the past
eight months, and has still not completed a drug assessment
and complied with the recommended treatment. (Dkt. No. 322 at
4.) Defendant maintains a steady job that he hopes to make
permanent and has a strong work ethic, as confirmed by his
supervisor. (Id. at 5-6.) In his commitment to
rehabilitation, his job, and his family, Defendant has
welcomed new influences that guide him away from crime.
(See Id. at 3-5; see also Dkt. No. 318 at
Defendant's past criminal history, and his recent
probation violations, the Court believes that a continued
period of supervised release will have some deterrence value.
Similarly, the Court believes that continued supervision will
help to protect the public from further crimes. Finally, the
Court does not view early termination of Defendant's
supervision as a source of disparity. Defendant has served
131 months of incarceration and about half of his five-year
term of supervision. (Dkt. No. 322 at 2.) The Court granted
early termination for Defendant's co-defendant Felicia
Bowen, who had similar convictions and spent less time in
prison and on supervised release. See United States v.
Felicia Bowen, Case. No. CR08-0307-JLR, Dkt. Nos. 289,
290 (W.D. Wash. 2013).
consideration of all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors the
Court finds that early termination at this juncture is not in
the interests of justice. The Court gives particular weight
to the seriousness of Defendant's defense, his related
criminal history, and his recent performance on supervised
foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for early
termination of supervised release (Dkt. No. 322) is DENIED.
The Government's motion to seal (Dkt. No. 325) is
GRANTED. The Clerk shall maintain ...