United States District Court, S.D. New York
ORDER AND OPINION
S. ROMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Anthony Perso ("Defendant" or "Perso")
moves pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) for early
termination of his supervised release. The Government opposes
the application on the basis Defendant has failed to meet the
requisite standard warranting the relief requested. For the
following reasons, the application is DENIED.
October 23, 2015, Defendant pled guilty to Attempted Mail
Fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, According to the
indictment, Perso, along with his two co-defendants, Nicolas
and Dominic Motta, engaged in a scheme to burn down a bar
located in Swan Lake, N.Y., for the purpose of collecting
insurance proceeds. At the time of the incident, the bar was
owned by co-defendant Dominic Motta. Following his guilty
plea, Perso was sentence to a ten month term of incarceration
to be followed by three years of supervised release.
letter dated received July 17, 2018, following the completion
of his term of incarceration and during the pendency of his
term of supervised release, Defendant petitions the court for
early termination of his supervised release. (ECF No. 52.)
Defendant asserts that his good behavior during his two year
period of supervised release warrants strong consideration.
While in custody, Defendant participated in and completed
various programs and received multiple certificates. Since
being placed on supervised release, Perso has remained active
in his community volunteering his musical talents at multiple
fundraisers and has been a law abiding citizen.
Government opposes the application. (ECF No. 53.) While
acknowledging that Defendant has been compliant with
conditions of his supervised release, they assert mere good
behavior does not merit the granting of such an extreme
relief. They further assert that the Defendant has not
demonstrated that his behavior is "exceptionally
good...such that the imposed conditions of supervision are
too harsh or inappropriately tailored to serve the general
punishment goals" of sentencing.
release involves a term of community supervision, following a
period of incarceration, with a set of conditions tailored to
serve the general goals of sentencing including punishment
and rehabilitation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e). Supervised
release serves to ease the defendant's transition into
the community after the service of a term of incarceration,
and is "rehabilitative," such that it attempts to
provide services when appropriate. See United States v.
Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59 (2000). Non-compliance with the
terms of supervised release may lead to re-incarceration. See
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
or revocation of a term of supervised release is governed by
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The granting of such a request is
an extraordinary remedy. See United States v.
Lussier, 104 F.3d 32, 36 (2d Cir. 1997). When reviewing
a defendant's petition for early termination of
supervised release, the court is required to first consider
"the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§
3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5),
(a)(6), and (a)(7)." 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Such
factors address "general punishment issues such as
deterrence, public safety, rehabilitation, proportionality,
and consistency." Lussier, 104 F.3d at 35.
After due consideration of all relevant statutory factors,
whether to giant early termination of supervise release falls
within the sound discretion of the court. United Stales
v. Bastien, 111 F.Supp.3d 315, 323 (E.D.N, Y. 2015).
may terminate a term of supervised release if 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); United States v. Harris,
689 F.Supp.2d 692, 694 (S.D.N, Y. 2010). Early termination of
supervised release has been deemed appropriate to
"account for new or unforeseen circumstances" not
contemplated at time of sentencing. See Lussier, 104
F.3d at 36; United States v. Rasco, No. 88 Cr. 817,
2000 WL 45438, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2000); United
States v. Monteperto, No. 01 Cr. 56, 2007 WL 914545, at
*1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2007) (internal citation omitted). The
mere inconvenience of being placed on supervised release does
not rise to the level of new or unforeseen circumstances that
would warrant early termination. See United States v.
Black, No. 10 Cr. 3O3-A, 2013 WL 2527371, at *3
(W.D.N.Y. June 10, 2013). Moreover, utter compliance with the
terms of supervised release does not constitute
"extraordinary circumstance" but what is expected
of a formerly incarcerated individual who required carefully
tailed conditions and services to reduce the risk of and
recurrence of future crime. See, Bastien, 111
F.Supp.3d at 321; United States v. Weintraub, 371
F.Supp.2d 164, 167 (D. Conn. 2005).
Defendant's petition fails. While the Court applauds
Defendant's efforts, the facts and circumstances do not
warrant the granting of such exceptional relief. Full
compliance with the terms of supervise release is what is
expected of the Defendant. Defendant's basis for seeking
a shortened term of supervision suggest that remaining on
supervised release poses an inconvenience. Since no showing
has been made that the relief requested should be granted in
the interest of justice, nor has there been a showing of
"new or unforeseen circumstances" not contemplated
at time of sentencing, the application must be denied.
foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to terminate
supervised release is DENIED. This constitutes ...