United States v. Anthony Tyrone Johnson, 877 F.3d 993

In 1997 Anthony Tyrone Johnson was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a)(2) and sentenced under the ACCA to 327 months imprisonment plus five years supervised release; the sentencing judge expressed concern about violent history.
After Johnson successfully challenged his ACCA enhancement post-Johnson (2015), the district court granted relief under § 2255, resentenced him to time served, and imposed a three-year term of supervised release without explaining the supervised-release term.
About a year later Johnson moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) for early termination of supervised release, citing his lengthy overdetention, stable employment, community involvement, and probation officer’s non-opposition.
The district court denied the motion in a one-line, paperless docket entry with no explanation.
Johnson appealed, arguing the denial was an abuse of discretion because the record and order do not show consideration of the § 3553(a) factors required by § 3583(e)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether courts must consider § 3553(a) factors when denying a § 3583(e)(1) motion	Johnson: the factors must be considered before denying relief	Government: factors are required only when granting termination	Court: § 3583(e)(1) requires consideration of the listed § 3553(a) factors whether granting or denying relief
Whether the district court must indicate or explain that it considered § 3553(a) factors when denying § 3583(e)(1) relief	Johnson: order or record must show consideration to permit meaningful appellate review	Government: judge’s prior knowledge and the record implicitly show consideration	Court: denial must demonstrate, in the order or record, that the pertinent § 3553(a) factors were taken into account
Standard of review for denial of early termination	N/A (appellant seeks meaningful review)	N/A	Abuse-of-discretion review requires sufficient explanation to permit meaningful appellate review; not a rubber stamp
Application to this case — sufficiency of the one-line denial	Johnson: one-line order plus record do not show consideration	Government: judge’s participation in the original trial and the motion file imply consideration	Held: vacated and remanded because the one-line docket entry and record do not show the required consideration; speculation is insufficient

United States v. Douglas, 576 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2009) (court must show § 3553(a) factors were considered when denying sentence-reduction motions)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing court must adequately explain decisions to permit meaningful appellate review)
United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review is not a rubber stamp; explanation required)
United States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d 933 (11th Cir. 2016) (defendant may appeal denial of early termination; appellate review contemplated)
Broadwater v. United States, 292 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2002) (cannot assume a judge’s recollection or prior involvement supplies sufficient grounds for summary denial)
United States v. Mathis-Gardner, 783 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (district court must indicate consideration of § 3553(a) factors when denying § 3583(e)(1) relief)
United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2014) (same)
United States v. Lowe, 632 F.3d 996 (7th Cir. 2011) (same)
United States v. Gammarano, 321 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 2003) (same)
United States v. Mosby, 719 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2013) (contrary view that district court need not explain denial)
United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936 (11th Cir. 2007) (consideration of § 3553(a) factors can sometimes be inferred from the record)