Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Salyer

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 19, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
FREDERICK SCOTT SALYER, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

          TROY L. NUNLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Frederick Salyer's (hereafter, “Defendant”) Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release. (ECF No. 686.) The government opposes Defendant's motion. (ECF No. 691.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is DENIED.

         I.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         Defendant pleaded guilty in March 2012 to two counts of a Second Superseding Indictment. (ECF No. 479.) Count One charged racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), and Count Eight charged price fixing in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1. (ECF No. 478 at 3.) Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seventy-two months and a term of supervised release of thirty-six months. (ECF No. 569 at 2-3.) According to Defendant's motion, he was released from custody and commenced his term of supervised release on November 30, 2016. (ECF No. 686 at 2.)

         Defendant filed the instant motion on August 20, 2018, requesting that his term of supervised release be terminated prior to its scheduled conclusion near the end of 2019. (ECF No. 686.) Defendant argues that terminating his supervised release is warranted because he is fully rehabilitated, has already been classified as a low risk supervisee, has obtained gainful employment and would be able to travel internationally as a consultant if his supervised release term is lifted, and has not committed any new crimes or abused alcohol since his release. (ECF No. 686 at 3-5.) The government opposes Defendant's motion on the ground that Defendant is not actually rehabilitated. (ECF No. 691.) The government suggests that if the Court terminates Defendant's supervised release early, it will lose jurisdiction to adjudicate any violations of Defendant's supervised release terms which he might commit. (ECF No. 691 at 1-2.)

         II. Standard of Law

         Pursuant to the statute governing imposition of a term of supervised release after imprisonment, a district 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). “The expansive phrases ‘conduct of the defendant' and ‘interest of justice' make clear that a district court enjoys discretion to consider a wide range of circumstances when determining whether to grant early termination.” United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014).

         At the same time, before entering an order terminating supervised release, the statute requires a district court to consider certain relevant statutory factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). These include: the nature and circumstances of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; the need for the supervised release terms to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct (i.e., general deterrence); the need for the supervised release terms to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant (i.e., specific deterrence); the need for the supervised release terms to provide the defendant with the most effective training, medical care, or other correctional treatment; the sentencing range for the offense, as well as any pertinent policy statements, issued by the United States Sentencing Commission; the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records convicted of similar crimes; and the need to provide restitution to any victims. Id. (requiring a district court to “consider[] 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)”).

         III. Analysis

         The Court will consider Defendant's arguments for early termination of supervised release in the general order in which Defendant's motion presents them.

         A. Gener ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.