United States District Court, D. New Jersey
RENÉE MARIE BUMB United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Ronzell
Mitchell's Motion to Terminate Supervised Release [Dkt.
No. 45]. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied
August 14, 2013, Defendant Ronzell Mitchell pled guilty to a
one-count Information charging him with conspiracy to commit
mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. On August
15, 2014, Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term
of 28 months and supervised release for a term of 3 years.
The Defendant was also required to pay restitution in the
amount of $272, 247 (which was submitted prior to
sentencing), and a fine of $35, 000 [Dkt. No. 33].
30, 2013, in the Eastern District of Texas, Defendant pled
guilty to mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341.
Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 46
months (later reduced to 31 months), followed by 3 years of
supervised release and was ordered to pay restitution in the
amount of $1, 408, 402.96.
custodial sentence in the instant matter was ordered to run
consecutively to the term of imprisonment imposed in the
Eastern District of Texas.
argues that he has complied with the conditions of supervised
release: specifically, 1)he engaged in rehabilitation during
his incarceration; 2) he has successfully developed a yoga
business; and 3) his family requires his presence outside of
the supervising district “sometimes on short
notice.” The Government (as well as the Court) commends
Defendant on his ability to maintain his yoga business.
Stable employment, however, is a standard condition of
supervised release. The Government disagrees, however, that
family circumstances and his inability to travel in the face
of family emergencies warrant early termination of supervised
release. Indeed, the probation officer advises that the
Defendant is routinely granted permission to attend to family
matters, including out-of-state events.
Government also notes that Defendant has outstanding
financial obligations imposed at sentencing in the instant
matter. The Government submits that the Court should consider
that the completion of supervised release is appropriate to
aid in the payment of Defendant's fine Cf. United
States v. Bayard, 537 Fed.Appx. 41, 43 (3d Cir.
2013)(affirming denial of motion for early termination where
the defendant owned $4, 000 in restitution). Defendant still
owes $31, 900 toward the fine imposed at sentencing, and $1,
388, 097.70 in restitution as ordered by the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Court has discretion to terminate a term of supervised
release, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section
3583(e)(1). That section provides, in pertinent part:
The Court may, after considering 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). . . terminate a term of supervised
release and discharge the defendant released at any time
after the expiration of one year of supervised release . . .
if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the
conduct of the defendant released and the interest of
termination of supervised release is a decision entrusted to
the sound discretion of the District Court. Courts in various
jurisdictions, including in the Third Circuit, have
repeatedly held that “mere compliance with the terms of
probation or supervised release is what is expected of
probationers, and without more, is insufficient to justify
early termination.” United States v. Caruso,
241 F.Supp.2d 466, 469 (D.N.J. 2003); see also United
States v. Paterno, 2002 WL 1065682, at *3 (D.N.J. April
30, 2002)(unpublished)(Bassler, U.S.D.J.) (“Merely
complying with the terms of his probation and abiding by the
law are not in and of themselves sufficient to warrant early
termination of probation; rather, this is simply what is
expected of Defendant”).
Court's view, Defendant has not demonstrated any
exceptional circumstances that would warrant early
termination of the period of supervised release imposed by
the sentencing Court. That Defendant has been compliant on
supervised release is what is expected of him, and, indeed,
Defendant still has outstanding financial obligations in
connection with the sentence imposed by this Court.
the § 3553 factors and the interest of justice this
Court that Defendant is routinely granted permission to
attend to family matters, including out-of-state events.,
this Court finds that the Defendant shall remain on
supervised release. Continuing Defendant on supervised
release “promotes respect for the law” and has
“a very valuable deterrent” effect on defendants,