Case Information
*1 Case 4:16-cr-00049-KGB Document 700 Filed 05/19/25 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 4:16-cr-00049-19 KGB PATRICIA ZARYCHTA DEFENDANT
ORDER
Defendant Patricia Zarychta has filed a motion for early termination of supervised release (Dkt. No. 661). The government has responded in opposition (Dkt. No. 686). Ms. Zarychta plead guilty to a charge of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) (Dkt. Nos. 420–21). On November 13, 2018, the Court sentenced Ms. Zarychta to 70 months of imprisonment, four years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment (Dkt. Nos. 549–50; 552). According to the United States Probation Office, Ms. Zarychta started her supervision on July 22, 2022, and Ms. Zarychta is not a career offender.
In support of her motion, Ms. Zarychta claims that she has completed at least 12 months of supervision, secured employment, and established a stable home. She also has had no violations of the conditions of her supervised release, based on information before the Court. In response, the government argues that Ms. Zarychta has not set forth any new or exceptional circumstances to justify early termination of supervised release.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the Court may terminate a term of supervised release where, after consideration of both the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the specific, enumerated factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) that the Court is permitted to consider, the Court concludes that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and is in the interest of
*2 Case 4:16-cr-00049-KGB Document 700 Filed 05/19/25 Page 2 of 2 justice. As she has served more than one year of supervised release, Ms. Zarychta is eligible for early termination of the remainder of her supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The Court acknowledges that Ms. Zarychta has complied with her conditions of supervised release. However, Ms. Zarychta does not provide any reason why early termination of her supervised release would serve the interests of justice.
Mere compliance with the terms of supervised release does not justify early termination because compliance is expected. Without more, and based on the facts of this particular case, early termination cannot be justified. While Ms. Zarychta has made progress on completing the terms of her sentence, she has not made substantial progress such that the interests of justice support early termination. Therefore, this Court denies without prejudice Ms. Zarychta’s motion for early termination of supervised release (Dkt. No. 661).
It is so ordered this 19th day of May, 2025. _______________________________ Kristine G. Baker Chief United States District Judge
2