United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
IS ORDERED that Defendant Donnell Carroll's
motion to terminate supervised release is
DENIED. (See Record Docs. 63 and 66)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
pled guilty on November 5, 2008 to two counts of distribution
of heroin and one count of conspiracy to distribute 100 grams
or more of heroin. Rec. Doc. 42. Defendant was sentenced on
November 19, 2009 by Judge Engelhardt to 160 months in prison
and 5 years supervised release to run concurrently with any
prison term remaining relative to defendant's revocation
of supervised release in CR-99-088. Rec. Doc. 42 at 2. On
September 30, 2013 Judge Engelhardt reduced the sentence to
118 months imprisonment. Rec. Doc. 49.
CR-99-088, defendant entered a plea of guilty on March 1,
2000 to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute Hydrochloride. See CR-99-88 Rec. Doc.
185. On November 8, 2000 defendant was sentenced to 120
months in prison and 5 years supervised release by Judge
Sarah S. Vance. Id. Defendant was released on
January 8, 2007. Rec. Doc. 66. On October 28, 2008,
defendant's supervised release was revoked, and he was
committed to the custody of BOP for 12 months. See
CR-99-88 Rec. Doc. 385. Defendant admitted guilt to
violations of conditions of his supervised release, after
being arrested and charged by New Orleans Police Department
for two counts of hit and run driving, flight from an
officer, reckless driving, resisting arrest and conspiracy to
distribute quantities of heroin in August 2008. Id.
was released from BOP custody on April 18, 2017. Rec. Doc. 66
at 2. He filed the instant motion to terminate supervised
release on October 29, 2019. The government filed a response
in opposition. Rec. Doc. 66.
emphasizes the completion of approximately half of his
supervisory release term and satisfaction of all financial
terms of sentence. In referring us to factors for early
termination of supervised release, defendant contends there
is no further need for programming or treatment, and that he
has successfully reintegrated into the community by
maintaining stable employment, housing and relationships with
family. Rec. Doc. 63-1.
opposition, the government, argues the absence of any unusual
or extraordinary circumstances justifying early termination
of supervised release. Rec. Doc. 66. It maintains that
defendant's mere compliance of supervised release terms
is not enough to warrant early termination. Id. The
government contends defendant's history and
characteristics suggest that he could benefit from continued
supervised release due to above-noted history of
non-compliance with conditions of supervised release.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), the Court, after considering
factors laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 may modify or
terminate a term of supervised release at any time after a
defendant has served one year of release. Among the factors a
court must weigh are the nature of the offense, the history
and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the
sentence to deter criminal activity, the need to protect the
public, the need to provide the defendant with educational or
vocational training, and the kinds of sentences and
sentencing ranges available. See 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a). Section 3583(e)(1) provides courts with broad
discretion in determining whether to terminate supervised
release. See United States v. Jeanes, 150 F.3d 483,
484 (5th Cir.1998).
the defendant has thus far complied with the terms and
conditions of supervised release, compliance alone is not
enough to warrant termination of supervised release as
compliance is an ordered expectation. United States v.
Hayes, No. CRIM.A. 01-311, 2013 WL 5328874, at *1(E.D.
La. Sept. 20, 2013).
criminal history and supervised release history weigh against
early termination of supervised release. He committed the
instant offense while on supervised release in another
federal case. See EDLA CR. No. 99-88 at Rec. Doc. 185. The
government along with the defendant's probation officer
oppose early termination of the defendant's supervised
release citing that history and the similarity of offenses.
Furthermore, the defendant has not demonstrated any
particular hardship resulting from completion of the
supervised release term. United States v. Landry,
No. 96-97, 1999 WL 605476, at *1-2 (E.D.La. Aug. 11, 1999)
(citing defendant's inability to gain employment in his
field as a reason for terminating supervised release). Judges
in this district have commonly held that merely abiding by
the conditions of supervised release is not enough to
terminate supervised release. See United States v.
Hayes, No. CRIM.A. 01-311, 2013 WL 5328874, at *1 (E.D.
La. Sept. 20, 2013)(holding that mere compliance with
supervised release is not sufficient to terminate supervised
release); United States v. Brown, No. CRIM.A.
03-310, 2012 WL 4059887, at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 14,
2012)(denying early termination of supervised release where a
defendant was compliant for four years as defendant failed to
demonstrate any hardship caused by its completion).
defendant's behavior since this new term of supervision
is very noteworthy, supervised release should continue in
view of his criminal history, characteristics of prior