United States v. Espersen, 2:16-cr-00302

Defendant Donnie J. Espersen has a 2005 Washington felony conviction for rape of a four‑year‑old; sentenced to 111 months and lifetime state supervision.
In December 2016 he violated state supervision at the Canadian border (gave false name/no ID); search revealed a rifle (Ruger 10/22), ammunition, a rifle magazine, multiple edged weapons, and camping gear.
He was federally convicted in August 2017 of unlawful possession of a firearm/ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); sentenced to time served and 36 months supervised release; state added two years for the release violation.
Federal supervised release began in June 2019; as of the decision he had served ~20 months of the 36‑month term without incident.
The Government opposes early termination; the supervising U.S. Probation Officer does not endorse early termination; Espersen argues he is rehabilitated and no longer needs supervision.
The Court denied Espersen’s motion for early termination of supervised release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to grant early termination under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1)	Oppose termination; supervision remains appropriate	Seeks early termination based on rehabilitation and compliance	Denied — court exercises discretion; defendant has not met the high burden for early termination
Whether mere compliance with conditions justifies termination	Mere compliance is insufficient to justify early termination	Points to ~20 months of incident‑free supervision as evidence of rehabilitation	Mere compliance alone is not enough; movant must show something unusual or extraordinary
Role of offense severity and public‑safety concerns	Seriousness of underlying offenses and weapons seizure weigh against termination	Argues rehabilitation mitigates risk	Court gives weight to nature of offense (history of child rape and weapons) and lack of probation endorsement; these factors weigh against termination

United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2014) (district court has discretion to terminate supervised release after one year and must provide a brief explanation of factors considered)
United States v. Etheridge, 999 F. Supp. 2d 192 (D.D.C. 2013) (early termination requires more than mere compliance; movant must show something extraordinary)
United States v. Smith, [citation="219 F. App'x 666"] (9th Cir. 2007) (courts should review the § 3553(a) factors when considering termination of supervised release)