United States v. LONGERBEAM
1:08-cr-00017
D.D.C.Jul 27, 2016Background
- Defendant Kenneth Longerbeam pled guilty (Feb 20, 2008) to interstate travel to engage in prohibited sexual conduct and was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment and 10 years supervised release (May 22, 2008).
- Conditions of supervised release included sex-offender registration, regular employment, and participation in sex-offender treatment; court recommended placement in a 500-hour substance-abuse program.
- Defendant previously moved for early termination; the court denied that motion on August 4, 2015 and allowed re-filing within one year.
- Defendant filed a renewed motion seeking termination after nearly six years of compliance, citing completion of treatment, registration compliance in Maryland, stable employment, sobriety efforts (AA/NA), and stable personal relationship.
- The government opposed the motion and U.S. Probation recommended denial. The court considered the § 3553(a) factors and the standards of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may terminate supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) | Government argued continued supervision is warranted given offense seriousness and sentencing factors | Longerbeam argued his lengthy compliance, treatment completion, registration, employment, and stable life warrant early termination | Denied — court found conduct did not meet the heightened showing required for early termination |
| Whether "exceptionally good" post-release conduct alone justifies termination | Government implicitly relied on need to weigh § 3553(a) factors; urged caution | Longerbeam asserted his flawless compliance and stability constitute changed circumstances | Court held that mere compliance/model conduct is expected and insufficient; must show something unusual or extraordinary |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis-Gardner v. United States, 783 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (district courts must consider specified § 3553(a) factors before denying early termination)
- United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 1996) (changed circumstances such as exceptionally good behavior can justify modification of release)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts should consider all § 3553(a) factors at sentencing)
- United States v. Etheridge, 999 F. Supp. 2d 192 (D.D.C. 2013) (explaining that perfect compliance alone typically does not constitute "exceptionally good" behavior for early termination)
- United States v. McKay, 352 F. Supp. 2d 359 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (model conduct under supervision is expected and generally insufficient for early termination)
- United States v. Medina, 17 F. Supp. 2d 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (post-incarceration unblemished conduct alone cannot swallow the rule permitting supervision)
- United States v. Caruso, 241 F. Supp. 2d 466 (D.N.J. 2003) (defendant must show something of an unusual or extraordinary nature in addition to full compliance)