Opinion
Case No. 2:04-CR-177.
February 14, 2008
OPINION ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Anthony Castore's Motion to Terminate Supervised Release. Castore pled guilty to six counts of attempting to import and possess various controlled substances, including anabolic steroids. The Court sentenced Castore to three years of supervised release, which Castore now moves to terminate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).
The Court has the discretion to commute Castore's term of supervised release after one year "if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and the interests of justice." 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). Castore petitions to terminate his supervision because it prohibits him from relocating to Chicago, Illinois, to pursue an enticing employment opportunity. But as the Government correctly notes, the United States Probation Office could transfer Castore's supervision in the event he obtains this position. In fact, when he filed this motion, Castore's probation officer was in the process of verifying his opportunity so that she could transfer his case to Chicago. The interests of justice do not require more.
Castore mistakenly compares his plight to that of defendant in United States v. Spinelle, 835 F. Supp. 987, 990 (E.D. Mich. 1993); aff'd 41 F.3d 1056 (6th Cir. 1994). The court terminated Spinelle's term of supervised release because of his extraordinary rehabilitation and community service. In prison, Spinelle completed over two-hundred and fifty hours of course-work to qualify as a licensed Chemical Dependency Therapist. Spinelle, 835 F. Supp. at 989. Upon release, Spinelle mentored forty at-risk youths, authored several state, federal, and foundational grants for the Community Commission on Drug Abuse, won a scholarship from the Michigan Department of Public Health's Center for Substance Abuse Services to attend a training institute, and counseled individuals struggling with chemical dependency. Id. Given Spinelle's impressive record, the court commuted his term of supervised release. Id. By contrast, Castore's only argument in support of his motion is that supervised release inhibits his ability to attain a job in Chicago. It does not. As such, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion.