United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF
SUPERVISED RELEASE RE: DOC. NO. 46
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge
Before
the court is the motion of defendant Balvinder Singh Chadha,
appearing pro se, for early termination of supervised release
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The court determines
that the matter is suitable for decision without response
from the government and without oral argument. Chadha's
motion for early termination of supervised release is DENIED
for the reasons set forth below.
On
April 4, 2012, Chadha entered a guilty plea, pursuant to a
Rule 11(c)(1)(C) written plea agreement, to one count of wire
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and one count
of conspiracy to willfully violate the federal conflict of
interest statute (18 U.S.C. §§ 208 and 216), in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. On October 24, 2012, the
court sentenced Chadha to a term of imprisonment of 51
months; supervised release for a term of three years; special
assessment of $200; restitution (jointly and severally liable
with co-defendant Jaspinder Chadha) in the amount of $4, 432,
156.82; and a forfeiture money judgment for $6, 434, 469.19.
Doc. no. 32. Chadha represents that he was released from BOP
custody to the supervision of the United States Probation
Office on November 2, 2015, and has completed 28 months of
his 36-month term of supervised release. Doc. no. 46 at 2. He
now seeks early termination of supervised release.
Early
termination of supervised release is governed by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e), which requires the court to consider factors
set forth in §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C),
(a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7). Those factors
“include the nature and circumstances of the offense,
the need for deterrence, the need to protect the public, the
need to provide defendant with training or medical care, and
the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines.”
United States v. Gross, 307 F.3d 1043, 1044 (9th
Cir. 2002). After considering those § 3553(a) factors,
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, 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. §
3583(e)(1). “‘Occasionally, changed
circumstances-for instance, exceptionally good behavior by
the defendant or a downward turn in the defendant's
ability to pay a fine or restitution imposed as conditions of
release-will render a previously imposed term or condition of
release either too harsh or inappropriately tailored to serve
the general punishment goals of section 3553(a).'”
United States v. Miller, 205 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th
Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Lussier, 104
F.3d 32, 36 (2nd Cir. 1997)).
Chadha
contends that early termination of supervised release is
warranted by his compliance ever since his release from
custody and the interests of justice. He contends that early
termination is supported by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors that are to be considered for early
termination of supervised release under § 3583(e),
arguing that he presents a low risk of recidivism given his
age and the fact that he had zero criminal history points at
the time of sentencing. The court considered that Chadha had
no prior criminal convictions and had a Criminal History
Category I in setting the sentencing guideline range and
imposing a low-end sentence.
In
considering the relevant § 3553(a) factors on
Chadha's motion for early termination, the court finds
that Chadha has not demonstrated changed circumstances that
would render the term of supervised release either too harsh
or inappropriately tailored to serve the penological
objectives and policies of § 3553(a). See
Miller, 205 F.3d at 1100-01 (citing Lussier,
104 F.3d at 36). Chadha's self-reported history of
compliance with the terms of his supervised release, though
commendable, is expected from a person on supervision and
does not constitute exceptional behavior that would warrant
early termination of supervised release. See United
States v. Bauer, CR 09-980 EJD, 2012 WL 1259251 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 13, 2012) (“compliance with release
conditions, resumption of employment and engagement of family
life [ ] are expected milestones rather than a change of
circumstances rendering continued supervision no longer
appropriate”); United States v. Grossi, CR
04-40127 DLJ, 2011 WL 704364 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011)
(“Mere compliance with the terms of supervised release
is what is expected, and without more, is insufficient to
justify early termination.”).
Accordingly,
Chadha's motion for early termination of supervised
release is DENIED. There shall be no modification to the
terms or conditions of supervised release.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I, the
undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the
Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District
of California.
That on
April 2, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the
attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid
envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said
copy(ies) ...