United States v. Murdock
Criminal No. 2013-0025
| D.D.C. | Jul 27, 2017Background
- Defendant Monique Murdock pleaded guilty (Nov. 13, 2013) to one count of theft from a program receiving federal funds (18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A)) based on conversion of school funds and misuse of a Government Purchase Card.
- Conduct: as Executive Director of a charter school she diverted $29,000 to a UTMA account for her foster child and converted it; later purchased unauthorized gift cards totaling $11,773 with a GPC.
- Sentencing (Apr. 14, 2014): nine months imprisonment, 36 months supervised release, $40,773 restitution, $100 special assessment; forfeiture consent order for $29,000 previously entered.
- Defendant began supervised release April 17, 2015 and, after ~20 months, moved (Jan. 2017) for early termination, citing full compliance, caretaking duties for elderly relatives, and plans to found a nonprofit to help veterans and returning prisoners.
- Government did not oppose conditional on restitution/payment compliance and updated financial disclosures; defendant completed those steps. Court nonetheless denied termination, finding compliance alone insufficient and supervised release served punishment and general deterrence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should terminate supervised release early under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) | Opposed unless restitution/payments and financial disclosures were current; argues term remains appropriate for punishment/deterrence | Seeks early termination after ~20 months of supervision due to full compliance, caregiving responsibilities, and plans to establish a nonprofit | Denied — early termination not warranted by conduct and not in the interests of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mathis-Gardner, 783 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (changed circumstances can justify revising supervised-release terms in rare cases)
- United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 1996) (recognizing courts may alter release when conditions become inappropriately tailored)
- United States v. Etheridge, 999 F. Supp. 2d 192 (D.D.C. 2013) (full compliance alone is generally insufficient; something "unusual or extraordinary" is required)
- United States v. Ginyard, 215 F.3d 83 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (supervised release is punitive and serves sentencing goals)
- Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (deterrence is a proper goal of punishment)