HEATHER WILLIAMS, # 122664 Federal Defender LEXI NEGIN, Bar #250376, Assistant Federal Defender, Sacramento, California, Attorney for Defendant, PHILLIP LACEFIELD.
MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Mr. Phillip Lacefield moves the Court for an order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) terminating supervised release early due to his successful performance. Such an order is warranted by Mr. Lacefield's excellent conduct and by the interests of justice. Mr. Lacefield's supervising probation officer confirms that he has served over three years of supervised release with complete compliance and he has been faithfully and consistently making monthly restitution payments as he can afford them.
At this point Mr. Lacefield requests termination because the special condition that he "shall not be employed where he may have access to personal identifying information of others" is preventing him from gainful employment. According to the probation officer, Mr. Lacefield is actively seeking employment and avails himself of all assistance from the probation office. However, the special condition, combined with a shoulder injury has prohibited him from gainful employment despite his excellent efforts.
Mr. Lacefield's first case originated in theWestern District of Tennessee, where he was indicted on February of 2002, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (engaging in monetary transactions of property derived from unlawful activity) and 18 U.S.C. §1028(a)(7)(fraud with identification documents)(W. Dist. Tenn. case no. 2:02-cr-20051-SHM-1.) On April 7, 2006, the Court sentenced Mr. Lacefield to 57 months incarceration for these offenses. In May of 2002, he was indicted for a second case for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 (mail and wire fraud) and 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (false statements on loan/credit application) and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements) (W. Dist. Tenn. case. No. 2:02-cr-20203-SHM-1). On April 19, 2006, the Court sentenced Mr. Lacefield to 41 months incarceration to run consecutive to the 57 month sentence for the 02-cr-20051 case for a total of 98 months incarceration. The Court ordered three year terms of supervised release in each case, and ordered that they run consecutively to one another.
Mr. Lacefield began his supervised release on March 27, 2010 in the Eastern District of California. Jurisdiction was transferred officially to the Eastern District of California on April 1, 2013.
Mr. Lacefield has been making great strides since his incarceration. Mr. Lacefield was released from prison to a halfway house in San Francisco and worked for an internet archive company during his stay at the halfway house. His time at the halfway house ended in March of 2010 and he began his first term of supervised release in Sacramento. He continued to work at the internet archive company after his time at the halfway house ended, but he was eventually laid off due to the company's financial health. From the halfway house he moved into the home of his parents in Rio Linda, California and he helps them as much as he can.
The probation officer has had to reject many potential jobs for Mr. Lacefield due to the condition of supervised release that says that he "shall not be employed where he may have access to personal identifying information of others." Mr. Lacefield has a rotator cuff injury and had surgery that prevents him from doing manual labor type work.
Today Mr. Lacefield continues to recuperate from his surgery and he is fervently looking for work. He is very involved with his local church in Woodland, California. He is a devout member in the choir and he teaches bible study classes there. Although he has been unemployed since his shoulder surgery, he makes monthly restitution payments by using his benefits from State Unemployment or State Disability. Unfortunately, his State Disability benefits will end in October of 2013, and for this reason, Mr. Lacefield is desperate for employment.
The supervised release condition that prohibits work that gives him access to personal identifying information closes the door to a wide array of jobs in fields in which Mr. Lacefield could work. The probation officer agrees that this condition of supervised release is preventing Mr. Lacefield from gainful employment.
The Court may "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." 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). In so ...