Illinois Cases September 14, 2022: United States v. Isringhausen

Case Description

1

ORDER GRANTING EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

DAVID W. DUGAN United States District Judge

On December 9, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Doc. 2, pgs. 1, 6, 8). On March 16, 2017, Defendant was sentenced to 50 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. (Doc. 2, pgs. 11-12). Defendant was required to submit to one drug test within 15 days of her release from prison, submit to two periodic drug tests thereafter, and to cooperate with her probation officer in the collection of DNA. (Doc. 2, pg. 12). Defendant began her term of supervised release on November 25, 2020. (Doc. 1). On June 14, 2021, Defendant's supervised release was transferred to this Court from the Eastern District of Missouri. (Doc. 1).

On August 9, 2022, Defendant filed a pro se Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. 3). Defendant noted that she is 6-years sober and has maintained full-time-employment. (Doc. 3, pg. 1-2). Defendant further noted that, in her full-time employment, she has received “multiple raises[] and...new job titles.” (Doc. 3,

2

pg. 2). Defendant also stated she was given a mentor position at her place of employment. (Doc. 3, pg. 3). Defendant has reestablished and maintained familial ties, including gaining full custody of her youngest child and becoming involved in her schooling. (Doc. 3, pgs. 2-3). Defendant is engaged to be married. (Doc. 3, pg. 4). Defendant has had no probation violations, new criminal charges, or outstanding warrants. (Doc. 3, pg. 3).

The Government filed a Sealed Response to Defendant's Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (Sealed Doc. 7) on September 6, 2022. The Government confirms Defendant has reported to the U.S. Probation Office, remained employed, and not violated any conditions of supervision. (Sealed Doc. 7, pg. 1). The Government also advises the Court that Defendant's probation officer believes Defendant is “a good candidate for early termination.” (Sealed Doc. 7, pg. 1). As such, the Government does not object to a grant of Defendant's Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release. (Sealed Doc. 7, pg. 1).

Defendant's Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), which provides that the Court may, after considering a number of facts, “terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant released at 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.” Although Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 ordinarily requires a hearing before a term of supervised release may be modified, no hearing is necessary if the relief sought is (1) favorable to Defendant and does not extend the term of probation or of supervised

3

release, and (2) the Government has received notice and a reasonable opportunity to object to the requested relief. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c)(2).

Here, the Court FINDS each of the aforementioned requirements is satisfied, such that a hearing on Defendant's Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release is not required. See id . The Court FURTHER FINDS , pursuant to § 3583(e)(1), Defendant has completed more than one year of supervised release and the early termination of the remainder of her supervised release is warranted and in the interest of justice, as Defendant is unlikely to benefit from additional supervision. See 28 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). Accordingly, upon consideration of the factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 3553, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release and ORDERS that her supervised release be terminated, effective immediately.

SO ORDERED.