UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Henry MERDZINSKI, aka Tom Merdzinski, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided: January 10, 2020
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Maria Jhai, Attorney, DOJ - Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Joseph B. Widman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Thomas Henry Merdzinski, Pro Se
Thomas Henry Merdzinski appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for early termination of his supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.
Merdzinski contends that the district court improperly relied on the seriousness of his underlying offense and failed to consider the totality of the evidence regarding his good conduct while on supervision. However, the record reflects that the district court identified the proper factors that guide an early termination decision. Though it discussed the seriousness of the underlying offense, it did so in the context of assessing the threat to the public posed by early termination and in assessing the nature and circumstances of the offense and Merdzinski’s history and characteristics, which are permissible considerations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Moreover, the court expressly considered Merdzinski’s arguments and evidence in favor of termination and explained why it did not find those arguments persuasive. The court did not abuse its broad discretion in concluding that early termination of supervised release was not in the interest of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); Emmett, 749 F.3d at 820.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.