United States v. Bukoski, 3:18-cr-00154

David Bukoski pled guilty to Aiding and Abetting Computer Intrusions after operating a website that marketed Distributed Denial of Service attacks, causing at least $5,000 in damages.
He was sentenced in February 2020 to five years’ probation in lieu of incarceration, with strict conditions, including computer usage limits and financial oversight.
Bukoski filed a motion for early termination of probation based on over four years of compliance and significant ongoing medical issues, including hypertension, kidney damage, and the need for a transplant.
The Government opposed early termination, arguing no new circumstances justify it, and emphasized that the court already imposed a below-guidelines sentence considering all relevant factors.
United States Probation and Pretrial Services (USPO) took no position but noted Bukoski’s clean record and ongoing health needs.
The court reviewed the motion under the discretionary standard of 18 U.S.C. § 3564(c), considering relevant sentencing factors and the conduct of the defendant.

Issue	Bukoski's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Early termination of probation	Over 4 years of compliance, significant health concerns, and probation served sentencing goals	No new or changed circumstances justify early termination; compliance alone is not enough	Motion denied without prejudice
Whether health conditions justify early termination	Health has deteriorated and care is burdensome under probation	Court considered health when sentencing; current care is adequate during supervision	No justification for early termination
Effect of amended judgment (no restitution)	No restitution ordered, thus condition is moot	Amended judgment does not constitute a material change warranting early termination	No impact on decision
Weight of compliance and rehabilitation	Compliance indicates risk has dissipated	Compliance is expected, not a basis alone for early termination	Not sufficient for early termination

United States v. Gross, 307 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (listing factors for early termination of supervised release, including nature of offense and conduct while on supervision)
United States v. Miller, 205 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2000) (compliance with conditions of probation does not alone justify early termination)
United States v. Bainbridge, 746 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2014) (early termination of supervised release does not necessarily require new or changed circumstances)
United States v. Ponce, 22 F.4th 1045 (9th Cir. 2022) (similar standard applies for supervised release modifications, allowing court discretion)