Free Docket Annotation - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

. . Page 2 of 4
= .° Case 3:03-cr-00027-EBB Document 13-3 Filed 04/20/2006 Page 1 of 3 (
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page l _
Not Reported in F .Supp.2d, 2000 WL 45438 (S.D.N.Y.) `
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
H (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the
Briefs and Other Related Documents defendant; e
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. (D) to provide the defendant with needed ,
United States District Court, S.D. New York. educational or vocational training, medical care, or
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA other correctional treatment in the most effective
v. manner;
Alfredo Felipe RASCO, Defendant. (4) the kinds of sentences and the sentencing range
No. 88 _CR 817 CSH. established for [defendants with similar
characteristics under applicable Sentencing
Jan. 19, 2000. Guidelines and policy statements]; -¢
(5) any pertinent policy statement issued by thc
Sentencing Commission that is in effect on the
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER date the defendant is sentenced; and
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing _
I-IAIGHT, Senior J. disparities among defendants with sirrrilar records
*1 In 1988, defendant Alfredo Rasco pleaded guilty who have been found guilty of similar conduct.
to a charge of cocaine trafficking in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 84l(b)(l)(A) and was sentenced by this
Court on April 23, 1990 to a term of five years’ The decision whether to grant early termination of
imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release under § 3583(e) rests within the
supervised release. Now that he has completed his discretion of the district court. United States v.
temr of imprisonment and three years of supervised Lussier, 104 F.3d 32, 36 (2d Cir.l997). The statute "
release, he moves pro se for an early end to his on its face authorizes the court to modify conditions (
supervised release which is scheduled to terminate of supervised release only when general punishment
on September 19, 2001. Rasco makes this motion in goals would be better served by modification? Id
reliance upon 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(l) which allows at 35. Early discharge or another form of
acourt to: modification is appropriate to “account for new or
terminate a term of supervised release and discharge unforeseen circtunstances" not contemplated at the
the defendant released at any time alter the initial imposition of supervised release. Id at 36.
expiration of one year of supervised release if it Only "occasionally" is it warranted due to the I
is satisfied that such action is warranted by the changed circturrstances of a defendant, such as his
conduct of the defendant released and in the exceptionally good behavior, which make the
interest of justice. previously imposed term of supervised release "
either too harsh or inappropriately tailored to serve"
(Emphasis added.) The court may do so after general punishment goals. Id
considering certain of the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553 which the court must also weigh in Because Rasco has already served more than one
determining the initial sentence. The identified year of his supervised release term, this court
factors include:(l) the nature and circumstances of clearly has the discretion to discharge his unexpired
the offense and the history and characteristics of the term of supervised release if it is warranted by his
defendant; ` conduct and is in the interests of justice. Rasco's
(2) the need for the sentence imposed- two-page motion does not provide a compelling -
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal reason why his supervised release should terminate -
conduct; approximately two years early. He explains that he "
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ·
http://print.westlawcom/delivery.html?dest=atp&fonnat=HTMLE&dataid=A0055800000025310005461... 4/12/2006 Z

· . ‘ I .' Case 3:03-cr-00027-EBB Document 13-3 Filed 04/20/2006 _Page 2 of 3 Page 3 oft p
‘ Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 2 l
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 45438 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
had an outstanding prison record," "has served his supervised release court held that "[w]hile
last three years of supervised release without [defendant's] post-incarceration conduct is
incident," has engaged in no other criminal conduct apparently unblernished, this alone camiot be
other than the “aberrant behavior leading to" his sufficient reason to terminate the supervised release
arrest and conviction in this case, and “has strong since, if it were, the exception would swallow the
family and community ties and holds full time rule").
employment? Motion for Modification ("Mo.") at .
1-2. Rasco also argues that the government "can no Nor has defendant identified any compelling reason
longer show or support a compelling penal interest why his continuation on supervised release is
inhis continued supervision."Mo. at 2. unduly burdensome to such an extent that it no
longer serves this Court's original punishment goals.
The only reason Rasco provides in requesting relief
FN}. As the government points out, the is that "if he has to upgrade his fmancial status and
characterization of his offense conduct in were able to find a better paying job, disclosing that i
this case as “abe1‘rant" behavior is not he is currently under federal supervision after
appropriate since Rasco had at least two sewing his sentence would make any reasonable
felony convictions prior to his conviction employer question his trust. Indeed, this supervised
in this case and was assigned a criminal release would be a great impediment taking into
history category of VI under the consideration the Defendant's age in this very
Guidelines at sentencing. See competitive world." But this sort of speculation
Governments Letter Brief dated does not amount to a changed circumstance that
November 29, 1999 at3 n. 3. makes compliance with supervised release difficult
or renders it unduly harsh. Defendant does not
*2 The government opposes Rasco's application on explain why any disclosure that he is presently on .
the ground that he has not identified any supervised release is more harmful to his chances
extraordinary conduct or unforeseen harsh for prospective employment than the disclosure that
consequences stemming from his supervised release he is a convicted felon, which I assume Rasco
that warrant its early termination. While the would honestly reveal if the question were
govermnent takes no contrary view of Rasco's subsequently asked by a prospective employer.
characterization of his conduct in jail and on More importantly, he has not indicated that he is
supervised release, it argues that Rasco has done presently seeking to change jobs or that his
nothing more than what was required of him-that he supervised release has actually prevented him from
serve out his sentence with good behavior and obtaining more lucrative employment. He merely
comply with the terms of his supervised release. suggests that it might present a possible future _
obstacle in that regard. But I cannot conclude that
Having considered the defendant‘s submission and the mere possibility of a future hardship ftnnishes a
reviewed the circumstances of his conviction and all basis for dismissing him early from supervised
the other relevant § 3553 factors, I conclude that release.
· Rasco has not demonstrated circumstances
warranting his early liberation from supervision. In any event, far from being excessively harsh, the
While I am pleased that Rasco maintained a record requirements of his supervised release have recently
of good behavior in prison and has adjusted well to been reduced and seem quite manageable. In its
supervised release, model prison conduct and full letter opposing the defendant's motion, the _
compliance with the tenns of supervised release is govemment explains that in recognition of his _
what is expected of him and all others serving terms successful compliance with the terms of his
of imprisonment and supervised release and does supervised release thus far, the probation officers -
not warrant early termination. See United States v. supervising Rasco have recently adjusted his
Medina, 17 F.Supp.2d 245, 247 (S.D.N.Y.l998) (in reporting requirements to make them consist of only
declining to grant early termination of defendant's a monthly telephone call to his supervising officer.
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://print.west1aw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&fonnat=HTMI,E&dataid=A00558000000253l000546l... 4/12/2006 -

.. , Q Page 4 of 4
-· . . _ Case 3:03-cr-00027-EBB Document 13-3 Filed 04/20/2006 _ _ Page 3 of 3 q
‘ Not Reported in F.Supp.2d M M Page 3 I
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 45438 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
Defendant has not provided an adequate
justification for unburdening him of this and any
other requirement of his two additional years of
supervised release.
*3 Rasco intimates that early termination is justified
because the government cannot show a compelling
need to continue his supervised release. This I
argument must be rejected. It is manifestly not the
governments burden to show the continued need for
supervision. The defendant was sentenced by this
Court to five years‘ supervised release. Neither the
statute nor the relevant case law places an
affirmative obligation upon the government to make
a showing of compelling penal need before a
defendant will be required to complete a validly
imposed term of supervised release. If the defendant .
desires to have that period shortened he must show
that the circumstances warrant it, not that the
government camrot prove otherwise.
While Rasco's good behavior in prison and on
supervised release is laudable, I am not satisfied
that his conduct has been so unusual as to merit the __
early termination of his supervised release. Nor do I
perceive any changed circumstances which compel
his discharge from the burdens of that punishment
in the interests of justice. Accordingly, for the
reasons discussed above I deny Rasco's motion to
terminate his remaining period of supervised release.
It is SO ORDERED.
S.D.N.Y.,2000. 4
U.S. v. Rasco
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 45438 ?
(S.D.N.Y.)
Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top) I
· l:88cr008l7 (Docket) (Oct. 13, 1988) -
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2006 Thomson/”West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://printwestlaw.com/delivery.htm1‘?dest=atp&fonnaFHTMLE&dataid=A005580000002531000546I... 4/12/2006