United States v. Atoklo
1:22-cr-00031
S.D.N.Y.
Apr 29, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Case Information

*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4/29/2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1:22-cr-31-MKV -against- ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EARLY SELASSIE ATOKLO TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE Defendant.

MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge:

On November 28, 2022, Defendant Selassie Atoklo was sentenced by this Court to 18 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by three years’ supervisеd release. [ECF No. 45]. On February 5, 2024, Defendant filed a pro se motion for early termination of his term of supervised release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sectiоn 3583(e). [ECF No. 54]. The Government responded in a March 28, 2024 letter, opposing Defendant’s request. [ECF No. 55]. According to the Government, Defendаnt was released from the Bureau ‍​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍of Prisons on or about February 9, 2024. [ECF No. 55]. Defendant is currently in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and therefore, the Probation Office has not yet assigned Defendant a supervising Probation Officer. [ECF No. 55].

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the Court may “terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant released at any time after the expiration of one yеar of supervised release . . . if it is satisfied that such action is warrаnted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interеst of justice” and “after considering certain sentencing factоrs outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Parisi , 821 F.3d 343, 347 (2d Cir. 2016). The Section 3553(a) factors empower the Court “tо modify conditions of supervised release only when general punishment goals would be better served by a modification.” United States v. Sarvis , 205 F.3d 1326 (2d Cir. 2000). “Although the District Cоurt is not required ‍​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍to set forth detailed findings on each statutory *2 factor, it must consider the listed factors, and a statement that the district judge hаs considered the statutory factors is sufficient.” Id . (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

The Second Circuit hаs held that a district court has the discretion to consider early tеrmination based on good behavior where the behavior has been “exceptionally good.” United States v. Lussier , 104 F.3d 32, 36 (2d Cir. 1997). Moreover, courts in this Circuit routinely hold that a defendant’s compliance with the terms of ‍​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍his supervision does not, in and of itself, entitle him to modification or termination оf his supervised release. See e.g. , United States v. Berrios No. 95-cr-84 (PKL), 2010 WL 1010022, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2010) (denying early termination of supervised release for defendant where the court expressed pleasure with compliance, good attitude, and work ethiс but noted that the defendant had “done nothing more than what is expеcted of all criminal defendants”) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Liriano , No. 91- cr-908 (JFK), 2010 WL 532517, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2010) (securing employment and compliance with terms of supervised release not “exceptional” enough to justify early termination of supervised release).

To date, Defendant has served less than two months of his three-yеar supervised release term. Therefore, Defendant has nоt yet served one year of his ‍​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍term of supervised release, аnd he is thus ineligible for early termination pursuant to Section 3583(e). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (The Court may “terminate a term of supervised release and dischаrge the defendant released at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release .”).

Moreover, although Defendant is ineligible, the Court has also considered all of the Sеction 3553(a) factors and finds no “changed circumstances” which “rеnder [this Court’s] previously imposed term or condition of releasе either too harsh or inappropriately tailored to serve the general punishment goals of section 3553(a).” Lussier , 104 F.3d at 36. Defendant’s argument that *3 he has showed “institutional progress” ‍​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍since being released from prison less than two months ago including retаining gainful employment, although commendable, demonstrates “nothing more than what is expected of all criminal defendants.” Berrios , 2010 WL 1010022, at *2. Indeed, one of the “standard conditions” of Defendant’s supervised release mandates that he “work full time.” [ECF No. 45].

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for early termination of his term of supervised release is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________ Date: April 29, 2024 MARY KAY VYSKOCIL

New York, NY United States District Judge

Read the detailed case summary