United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER FOR RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF
SUPERVISED RELEASE (DOC. NO. 78)
September 16, 2019, Defendant Jack Carter filed a motion for
early termination of supervised release. See Doc.
October 31, 2006, Carter was sentenced to 60 months
imprisonment and 180 months of supervised relieve for
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), use of a facility of
interstate commerce to induce a minor to engage in criminal
sexual activity. See Doc. No. 31. The factual basis
for Carter's crime involved his travels from Texas to
California in the belief that he would be able to engage in
sexual acts with two young girls. See Doc. No. 28.
Carter's term of supervised release began on December 28,
November 2011, Carter used marijuana. See Doc. No.
January 2012, Carter was charged with violating four terms of
conditions of supervised release: (1) having unauthorized
contact with a minor, (2) failing to submit written weekly
and monthly report, (3) using marijuana, and (4) failing to
truthfully answer questions from his probation officer.
See id. In April 2012, Carter admitted violations 1,
3, and 4, see Doc. No. 46, and he was sentenced to 6
months in custody and 173 months of supervised release.
See Doc. Nos. 52, 53.
November 2012, Carter was charged with four supervised
release violations: (1) associating with a prohibited person,
(2) associating with a person engaged in criminal activity,
(3) failing to follow the instructions of his probation
officer, and (4) ingestion of methamphetamine. See
Doc. No. 55. Carter admitted all four violations, was
sentenced to nine months imprisonment and 165 months of
supervised release. See Doc. No. 70.
16, 2015, Carter used marijuana. See Doc. No. 75.
February 2017, Carter was attacked and severely beaten.
See Doc. No. 78. Carter suffered intracranial
hemorrhages, an orbital fracture, a mandible fracture,
vertebral fractures, and had symptoms of traumatic brain
injury. See id. Carter also suffers from
to a letter from Dr. McClain dated September 12, 2018, she
has observed significant and very concerning declines in
Carter's health related to his Parkinson's disease,
including recurrent falls, difficulty walking, difficulty
initiating and changing movements, observable memory loss,
and confusion. Dr. McClain also was looking into more
supervised/assisted care options as the Parkinson's
disease is progressing to the point where he will likely need
24 hour care. Currently, Dr. McClain is of the opinion that
Carter should be placed in hospice care and has put in for
placement in hospice. It appears that Dr. McClain is a friend
of Carter, having met Carter through her husband who is a
registered sex offender.
Dr. McClain's opinions regarding Carter's care, the
government reports that Carter is not currently in hospice,
he lives independently, and has good and bad days in terms of
U.S.C. § 3583 inter alia permits a court to
terminate a term of supervised release, after considering
various factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Emmett, 749
F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014). Those factors are: (1) the
nature and circumstances of the offense and the nature and
characteristics of the defendant, see §
3553(a)(1); (2) the need for the sentence imposed to provide
adequate deterrence, see § 3553(a)(2)(B); (3)
the need for the sentence imposed to protect the public from
further crimes by the defendant, see §
3553(a)(2)(C); (4) the need for the sentence to provide the
defendant with needed educational, vocational, medical, or
other correctional treatment or aide, see §
3553(a)(2)(D); (5) the kind of sentence and the sentencing
range established for the applicable category of offense in
the sentencing guidelines, see § 3553(a)(4);
(6) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing
Commission, see § 3553(a)(5); (7) the need to
avoid unwarranted sentence disparities, see §
3553(a)(6); and (8) the need to provide restitution to any
victims, see § 3553(a)(7). After considering
these factors, a court may terminate 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); Emmett,
749 F.3d at 819. In considering the “interest of
justice, ” the Court may also consider any “undue
hardship” that the defendant might be suffering.
See Emmett, 749 F.3d at 820. District courts must
explain its decision to either grant or deny a motion for
early termination of supervised release. See id. at
argues that he was released from prison 10 years ago and has
approximately 93 months of supervision remaining. He is in
need of 24 hour care and his physician is of the opinion that
he should be placed in hospice care. The stress caused by
supervision is worsening his condition. Given his condition,
Carter argues that the need for supervision to ...