United States v. Barnes, 1:04-cr-00186

Defendant Tuere Barnes was convicted of racketeering, conspiracy to distribute narcotics, kidnapping, conspiracy to murder, and possession of a firearm in relation to a kidnapping; original sentence 300 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release.
On July 7, 2020 the Court reduced Barnes’s sentence under the First Step Act to time served plus one week; supervised release (3 years) began about July 14, 2020 and he has served ~18 months.
Barnes moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) for early termination, citing extensive prison programming, ongoing rehabilitation, steady employment (three jobs), no violations or failed drug tests, and asserted business and family travel needs.
The Government and the Probation Department opposed the motion.
The Court applied the § 3583(e) standard—considering the § 3553(a) factors and Guide to Judiciary Policy—and emphasized that compliance alone generally does not justify early termination given the seriousness of Barnes’s offenses and prior lengthy sentence.
On January 12, 2022 Judge Loretta A. Preska denied Barnes’s motion for early termination and ordered the motion closed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Barnes’s conduct and the interests of justice warrant early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (considering § 3553(a)).	Barnes: sustained rehabilitation, extensive programming, steady employment, and no supervision violations justify termination.	Government/Probation: compliance alone is insufficient; seriousness of underlying crimes and sentencing history weigh against termination.	Denied. Court found no extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances; faithful compliance does not by itself warrant termination.
Whether travel restrictions and family/business needs amount to extraordinary or unforeseen hardship supporting early termination.	Barnes: travel-authorization requirements impede starting an interstate trucking business and frequent visits to ill parents.	Government/Probation: travel-approval process is an ordinary supervision condition; Barnes did not show concrete harm beyond inconvenience.	Denied. The inconvenience of travel authorization is not a sufficient, unforeseen hardship to justify termination.

United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 1997) (changed circumstances may sometimes justify modification or termination of supervised release).
United States v. Bouchareb, 76 F. Supp. 3d 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (faithful compliance with supervision alone does not entitle a defendant to termination).