UNITED STATES v. GARCIA RIVAS (2024)

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Ulises Garcia-Rivas brings this Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release, ECF [9]. The Court heard oral argument on January 4, 2024. For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Garcia-Rivas's motion is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

A court has discretion to terminate a term of supervised release any time after “the expiration of one year of supervised release ․ 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 determining whether termination is warranted, this Court must consider the following relevant factors:

“(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;

“(2) The need for the sentence imposed –

․

“(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

“(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and

“(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;

․

“(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for –

“(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant ․

“(5) any pertinent policy statement –

“(A) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(2) ․ that is in effect on the date the defendant was sentenced; and

“(B) that, except as provided in section 3742(g), is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced.

“(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and

“(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.”1

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B)-(D), (4)-(7).

The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that early termination is justified. United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 559 n.9 (9th Cir. 2006). When denying or granting a defendant's request for early termination of supervised release, a court must provide an explanation that is “sufficiently detailed to permit meaningful appellate review” and “state[s] the court's reasons for rejecting nonfrivolous arguments.” United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2014).

BACKGROUND

On March 30, 2018, Mr. Garcia-Rivas was sentenced in the Northern District of Texas to a 121-month term of imprisonment for Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances, followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Transfer of Jurisdiction for Supervised Release as to Ulises Garcia-Rivas and Acknowledgement of Receipt of Crim. Case Transfer, ECF [1], Ex. 3, at 1. Mr. Garcia-Rivas operated two methamphetamine conversion laboratories. Gov't Resp. to Def.’s Mot. for Early Termination of Supervised Release (“Gov't Resp.”), ECF [14], at 2. Mr. Garcia-Rivas was found in control of a total of 26.7 gallons of liquid methamphetamine, which is capable of being converted into 168.9 pounds, or 84.78 kilograms, of crystallized methamphetamine. Id. Mr. Garcia-Rivas was also found in control of 3.19 grams of actual methamphetamine seized from one of the conversion laboratories. Id.

On September 27, 2022, Mr. Garcia-Rivas began a three-year term of supervised release, which will end on September 26, 2025. Id. Upon his release from custody, Mr. Garcia-Rivas resided with his mother and siblings in Salem, Oregon. Report on Person Under Supervision, ECF [11], at 1. In January 2023, he moved into his own apartment. Id. at 2. Although he moved out of his mother's residence, he maintains a close relationship with her and his siblings. Id. Mr. Garcia-Rivas has been compliant since commencing supervision, and maintains appropriate communication with his supervising officer, timely completes and passes his drug screens, and regularly provides verification of employment. Def.’s Mot. for Early Termination of Supervised Release (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF [9], at 4. Mr. Garcia has not needed any ongoing programming, counseling, or treatment on supervision, and none have been required of him. Id.

Mr. Garcia-Rivas maintains employment at Cabinet Door Service Company. Id. His employer wrote a letter in support of his motion, describing him as having “a lot of initiative,” “always on time,” and “always available to work over[time].” Suppl. to Mot. for Early Termination of Probation/Supervised Release, ECF [16], at 2. As an example, his employer notes that Mr. Garcia-Rivas created a troubleshooting book. Id.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Garcia-Rivas seeks early termination of his supervised release term, arguing that he has derived all the important benefits of supervision. Mr. Garcia-Rivas has shown total compliance on supervised release, and is not in need of any ongoing programming, counseling, or treatment, and none has been required of him during supervision. Def.’s Mot. 4. The only contact Mr. Garcia-Rivas receives from the Probation Office is for approval of travel.² In turn, supervision has no further deterrent effect, and there is no indication that he would commit crimes absent supervision.

The government opposes termination primarily because of the seriousness of the offense committed by Mr. Garcia-Rivas. Gov't Resp. 5. The government also argues termination would be “too soon,” as he has completed less than half of his supervision term. Id. The Probation Office echoes the concern about the seriousness of Mr. Garcia-Rivas's offense and the timing of this request but concedes that according to the Post Conviction Risk Assessment (“PCRA”), he is considered to be at low risk to reoffend. Report on Person Under Supervision, ECF [11], at 2.

The government and the Probation Office's “too soon” concern is misguided. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) allows termination any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release. Thus, it is permissible to grant early termination any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release if termination is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and in the interest of justice.

The Court finds that early termination of supervised release is warranted here. The nature and circumstances of Mr. Garcia-Rivas's underlying crime are undoubtably serious. However, supervised release is not meant to be punitive. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) (directing courts to consider some of the § 3553(a) factors and exclude the factor concerning punishment); see also United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59, 120 S.Ct. 1114, 146 L.Ed.2d 39 (2000) (“Congress intended supervised release to assist individuals in their transition to community life. Supervised release fulfills rehabilitative ends, distinct from those served by incarceration.”). Mr. Garcia-Rivas has successfully reintegrated into the community, and the need for supervision to deter or protect the public from further crimes is low. Indeed, Mr. Garcia-Rivas has no new criminal conduct while on supervised release, and the underlying offense is the sole criminal conduct in his lifetime. Supervision, at this point, is not a good use of taxpayers’ resources. Thus, early termination of supervised release is warranted by the conduct of Mr. Garcia-Rivas, consideration of the 3353(a) factors, and in the interest of justice.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Mr. Garcia-Rivas's Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release, ECF [9], is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The government concedes that restitution is not at issue in this case.

2.   On two occasions, Mr. Garcia-Rivas has requested approval to travel to Mexico, and the Probation Office, on both occasions, has recommended granting the requests. See Reports on Person Under Supervision, ECF [3] and [8]. Mr. Garcia-Rivas was granted travel to Mexico on both occasions, one trip lasting nineteen days and the other lasting four days. See Reports on Person Under Supervision, ECF [4] and [8].

Adrienne Nelson, United States District Judge