UNITED STATES v. CAMPBELL (2023)

DECISION AND ORDER

Currently pending before the undersigned is a motion filed by defendant Calvin Campbell (“Defendant”) for early termination of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). (Dkt. 156). This is the second motion for early termination filed by Defendant since his current five-year term of supervised release commenced on July 5, 2022. The first motion was denied by Decision and Order entered December 28, 2022, on the ground that Defendant had not served at least one year of supervised release, the applicable factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not support early termination, and early termination was not warranted by the conduct of Defendant and the interest of justice. (Dkt. 155). The lengthy background of this case—including Defendant's two separate revocations of supervised release with resulting incarceration—are detailed in that Decision and Order, familiarity with which is assumed for purposes of this Decision and Order. (See id. at 1-3; see also Dkt. 141 at 1-5).

Now having waited until the one-year period of supervised release elapsed on July 5, 2023, Defendant again moves for early termination. Defendant argues that on September 9, 2020, this Court “made clear on the record that it [would] seriously consider early termination at the one year point if Mr. Campbell made a positive adjustment.” (Dkt. 156 at 5). Defendant also contends that his motion is “unopposed.” (Id.). Defendant goes on to argue that consideration of the relevant § 3553(a) factors warrants granting his motion for early termination. (Id. at 8-14).

The pending motion is opposed by both the United States Attorney's Office and United States Probation Office (“USPO”). (Dkt. 158; Dkt. 159). According to the USPO, Defendant's “urine screen obtained November 18, 2022 was positive for marijuana,” and he “subsequently signed an admission form indicating that he used marijuana on November 14, 2022.” (Dkt. 158 at 1).

Section 3583(e)(1) of Title 18 of the United States Code states, in relevant part, as follows:

The court may, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) ․ terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant released at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the modification of probation, if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice․

Here, Defendant has served the necessary time on supervised release to qualify for an early termination. However, the circumstances do not justify granting early termination. Defendant has a significant, repeated history of violating post-incarceration conditions that have been imposed; he has a lengthy history of drug trafficking; and within six months of commencing the current term of supervised release he violated the terms and conditions by using marijuana, which demonstrates a continuing disregard for the rules. Defendant contends in his motion that he is rehabilitated and no longer needs supervision, but his arguments in this regard are vague and he provides no specifics. In other words, Defendant's conclusory statements that he no longer requires supervision do not justify early termination, particularly in light of his history of criminal activity. And it is troubling that Defendant misrepresents the record by contending that the undersigned stated on September 9, 2020, that it would “seriously consider termination at the one year point”—no such statement was made by the undersigned at that appearance (see Dkt. 151) or at any other point ¹ —and by contending that the pending motion is unopposed. (Dkt. 156 at 5). Based on Defendant's history, there is a significant risk that Defendant will re-engage in criminal conduct, and the Court believes that the terms and conditions of supervised release and appropriate supervision by the USPO can protect against that risk. As the Court has previously acknowledged, there are certain disparities in sentencing as discussed in its Decision and Order entered on November 23, 2020 (Dkt. 141), but based on its consideration of the nature and circumstances of Defendant's offense, his history and characteristics, as well as the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct and protect the public from any further crimes that Defendant may commit, the Court concludes that granting Defendant's request for early termination of supervised release would be inappropriate and inconsistent with the interest of justice.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion for early termination of supervised release (Dkt. 156) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   What the Court has said is that if, in fact, Defendant has truly reformed and leads a law-abiding life after being released from prison—something that he has failed to do over the past several decades—then he may potentially seek relief consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) to terminate his supervised release term prior to the expiration of the five years imposed by the Court. (Dkt. 141 at 15).

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, Chief Judge