United States District Court, D. Arizona
Honorable Cindy K. Jorgenson United States District Judge.
Court has reviewed and considered the Motion for Early
Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. 115) filed by
Defendant Arnoldo Saavedra Chavira (“Chavira”).
The government has filed a response indicating government
counsel adopts the recommendation of the probation officer
who opposes the early termination of supervised release.
summarized by the government:
A federal grand jury indicted the defendant for the crimes of
Count 1: Bulk Cash Smuggling and Count 2: Evading Reporting
Requirements, occurring on or about July 16, 2015, at or near
Nogales, in the District of Arizona. (ECF # 12). On February
8, 2017, this Court sentenced the defendant to a 6-month term
of incarceration to be followed by 36 months of Supervised
Release. (ECF # 113). The first condition of Supervised
Release is a prohibition against violating federal, state or
local law. Id. Another term of Supervised Release
imposed by this Court was a requirement that the defendant
study for and obtain a GED. Id
(Doc. 116, pg. 1).
is statutorily eligible for early release of supervision:
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)-
(1) 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). “[T]he plain language of the
statute indicates that the district courts have broad
discretion to alter the conditions of a defendant's
supervised release.” United States v. Miller,
205 F.3d 1098, 1100 (9th Cir. 2000). Additionally, a district
court is to explain the reasons for its ruling on a request
for early termination of supervised release. United
States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2014).
a district court “‘need not tick off each of the
[relevant] § 3553(a) factors to show that it has
considered them.'” Id. at 822 (quoting
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008)). Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has declined to read
a “changed circumstance” requirement into the
statute. United States v. Bainbridge, 746 F.3d 943,
949 (9th Cir. 2014).
Chavira asserts he has made many positive changes in his
life, including getting married, having a child, purchasing a
home, and starting his own business. However, the probation
officer in this case, Natasha Kopsie, recommends against
terminating Chavira's supervised release. Chavira has a
previous misdemeanor conviction for DUI and an Arizona state
court required Chavira to only operate motor vehicles
equipped with an ignition interlock device. Ms. Kopsie states
that she observed Chavira driving a motor vehicle that was
not equipped with such an ignition interlock device.
a condition of Chavira's supervised release was that he
obtain his GED. Chavira has yet to obtain his GED, but claims
that his inability to do so stems from his dysgraphia and
dyslexia. However, Chavira has provided no supporting
documentations demonstrating that he suffers from those
conditions. Even compliance with the terms of supervised
release is not enough by itself to warrant early termination.
See e.g. Folks v. United States, 733 F.Supp.2d 649,
652-52 (M.D. N.C. 2010) (collecting cases); see also
United States v. Grossi, No. 04-40127 DLJ, 2011 WL
704364 *2 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 11, 2011) (“Mere compliance
with the terms of supervised release is what is expected, and
without more, is insufficient to justify early
lack of compliance with the terms of supervised release is
concerning and the Court finds no reason to second-guess the
original sentencing decision as to the length of supervised
release or the recommendation of Chavira's supervising
probation officer. The Court commends Chavira for the
positive changes he has made while on supervision and
encourages him to successfully complete supervision which
will expire on July 31, 2020. However, this is not a
circumstance tending to prove that a lesser period of
rehabilitation is required than that previously determined.
The interests of justice are best served by ensuring Chavira
complies with the terms of his release for the length of time
the Court originally estimated was necessary to ensure his
based on Chavira's request, the Court will modify the
conditions of supervised release to allow Chavira to travel
to Mexico only with ...