United States District Court, E.D. California
Eduardo Nunez Pichardo, appearing pro se, moves the court for
early termination of his supervised released. Mot., ECF No.
101 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1)). Pichardo did
not request a hearing. Id. at 1 (citing Fed R. Crim.
P. 32.1(c)(2)(C)). After reviewing Pichardo's
presentence report and reviewing probation documents
verifying his employment, the government does not object.
Non-Opp'n, ECF No. 105. As discussed below, the court
GRANTS this motion.
January 23, 2007, Pichardo pled guilty to three charges:
Conspiring to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, 21
U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1); laundering monetary
instruments, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i); and
structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, 31
U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3). Plea, ECF No. 70. He was sentenced
on March 25, 2008 to 120 months in prison followed by 120
months of supervised release. Sentencing Mins, ECF No. 90.
His prison term was later reduced to 72 months; his
supervisory release term remained unchanged. Judgment Order
Oct. 14, 2010, ECF No. 100. Pichardo's supervision began
on September 9, 2011. Mot. at 1 ¶ 2. The case was
reassigned to the undersigned on February 23, 2017.
Reassignment, ECF No. 103. Now, with just over four years
remaining, Pichardo asks the court to terminate the remainder
of his term of supervision.
district court enjoys significant discretion in crafting
terms of supervised release for criminal defendants.”
United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 557, 558 (2006)
(citations omitted). “Consistent with a district
court's broad discretion in imposing terms of supervised
release, the language of §3583(e) gives district courts
broad discretion in determining whether to grant a motion to
terminate supervised release.” United States v.
Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations
omitted). But the court's discretion is not limitless:
The court must consider relevant factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) and explain its sentencing decision.
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc). The court need not scrutinize each
3553(a) factor and the process need not be mechanical.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (court “may
reduce the term of imprisonment . . ., after considering the
factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they
are applicable”); United States v. Trujillo,
713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013). Relevant factors include
the nature and circumstances of the conviction, the
defendant's characteristics and behavior, deterrence,
public safety, avoiding sentencing disparity, and obtaining
restitution for victims. See 18 U.S.C. §
the relevant § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of early
termination. Pichardo did not commit violent crimes and there
is no indication he poses a public safety threat. He has
served more than half of his supervision term and, as he
argues and as evidenced by the absence of revocation
petitions on the court's docket, remained cooperative and
law abiding throughout. See Mot. at 3, 6. He has
only one criminal history point, placing him in the category
of offenders who have among the lowest risk of recidivism,
which in turn mitigates deterrence concerns. Id. at
4 ¶ 12 (citing statistics from Recidivism and the
“First Offender”; A component of the Fifteen
Year Report on the U.S. Sentencing Commission's
Legislative Mandate at 13-14, (May 2004), which shows
offenders with zero criminal history points have only an 11.7
percent primary recidivism rate). He has paid the required
$300 in special assessments in full and has satisfied all
other financial obligations associated with this case.
Id. at 3 ¶ 10. He owes no restitution.
Id. He appears to have no educational, medical, or
other needs that further supervision would facilitate.
Id. at 6, ¶¶ 18, 19 (discussing strong
home support system, gainful employment, and negative drug
screens). Significantly, the government does not oppose this
request. Non-Opp'n at 1. Taken together, these factors
all support early termination.
court GRANTS Pichardo's motion.
 “The court may, after
considering the [relevant] factors set forth in section
3553(a)- 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.” 18 U.S.C. §
 This section provides an exception to
the general rule requiring hearings for sentence
modifications if “an attorney for the government has
received notice of the relief sought, has had a reasonable
opportunity to object, and has not done so.” Fed. R.
Crim. P. 32.1(c)(2)(C).
 The link Pichardo provides is not
active, but the PDF is available at
Recidivism- First - Offender.pdf (last visited on July 7,
2017). The general conclusion in the report he cites has been
confirmed more recently by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
See U.S. Sentencing Commission, Recidivism Among
Federal Offenders: A Comprehensive Overview (Mar. 2016)