Sentencing; Motion for termination of supervised release under 18 USC § 3583(e)(1); District court discretion; United States v Atkin (Unpub 6th Cir); Whether “exceptionally good behavior” is necessary for early termination of supervised release; United States v Lussier (2d Cir)

The court held “that § 3583(e)(1) does not require a finding of exceptionally good behavior before a district court may grant a motion for early termination of supervised release, though such behavior” is relevant. Thus, it vacated the district court’s denial of defendant-Hale’s motion for an early termination of his supervised release and remanded for reconsideration. Hale pled guilty in state court to aggravated sexual battery. He later pled guilty in federal court to traveling out of state and “failing to update his sex-offender registration in Tennessee as required under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act[.]” He was sentenced to 15 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. He violated his release conditions by consuming alcohol. Almost three years later, he unsuccessfully moved for early termination of supervised release, arguing that despite the alcohol misstep, he had complied with all his requirements. On appeal, the court explained that a district court has the discretion under § 3583(e)(1) to terminate supervised release after one year “‘if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.’” In Atkin, the Sixth Circuit held that “‘[e]arly termination of supervised release is a discretionary decision that is only warranted in cases where the defendant shows changed circumstances—such as exceptionally good behavior.’” Relying on Atkin, the district court concluded that even though Hale’s behavior had been “’admirable,’” it was “‘far from exceptional’” and did not justify early termination. The court agreed “with Hale that Atkin did not correctly state the legal standard when it said that early termination of supervised release is ‘only warranted’ upon a showing of ‘exceptionally good behavior.’” The statutory text provides that a district court is “to determine whether early release ‘is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice,’ in addition to certain § 3553(a) factors. The text does not make ‘exceptionally good’ conduct an absolute prerequisite to relief.” The court found that the district court appeared, “understandably, to have read our unpublished caselaw to require a showing of ‘exceptionally good’ behavior as a threshold to relief[.]”