United States v. Dennis Emmett, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7216

Emmett pled guilty to one count of mail fraud and received 51 months’ imprisonment plus a three-year term of supervised release.
The offense involved a scheme to induce investments in fraudulent companies claiming to buy lottery tickets and distribute proceeds, causing $14–$20 million in losses to tens of thousands of victims.
Approximately two years after release from custody, Emmett moved for early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
Emmett argued continued supervision was a waste of resources because the offense was non-violent, he had no violations, and counseling/training were not provided.
The district court denied the motion five days after filing without a hearing or response from the government or probation office, stating Emmett failed to show undue hardship.
The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings to provide a sufficient explanation and consider § 3553(a) factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard for early termination	Emmett argued the court misapplied § 3583(e).	Emmett’s position is that the court used an undue-hardship requirement; district court did not misapply but did not articulate standard.	The court did not abuse its discretion in applying § 3583(e) but must articulate the reasons.
Duty to explain the decision on early termination	Emmett contends the court failed to adequately explain rejection of nonfrivolous arguments.	District court relied on absence of undue hardship and need not provide elaborate reasoning.	There is a duty to explain; the single undue-hardship remark is insufficient.
Sufficiency of the district court’s explanation on remand	Emmett argues for meaningful appellate review with explicit reasoning tying to § 3553(a) factors.	Court may provide explanation on remand without enumerating every factor.	Remand required with explanation adequate for meaningful review.
Whether the district court’s lack of a hearing or response from government/probation costs review	Emmett did not necessarily require a hearing; lack of response should be explained.	Hearing not required; adverse positions were known from ex parte filing.	Not dispositive; explanation must still permit meaningful appellate review.

United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2006) (district court has wide latitude in setting supervised release terms)
United States v. Hook, 471 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2006) (broad discretion in determining whether to grant early termination)
United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 1999) (discretion to consider a wide range of circumstances under § 3583(e))
United States v. Lowe, 632 F.3d 996 (7th Cir. 2011) (blanket rules denying termination violate § 3583(e))
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court must explain sentencing decisions; nonfrivolous arguments require explanation)
United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2013) (need for explanation to permit meaningful appellate review when evaluating non-frivolous arguments)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (explains importance of reasoned sentencing and public trust)
United States v. Miller, 205 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2000) (exceptionally good behavior is expected and not alone a change of circumstances)
United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 1997) (compliance is expected; not a basis for relief absent change in circumstances)
United States v. Bainbridge, 746 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2014) (recognizes broad discretion in modifying supervised release; requires consideration of § 3553(a) factors)