Opinion
Criminal Action No. 01-408.
January 18, 2005
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of January, 2005, upon consideration of defendant's Petition for Early Termination of Probation (Document No. 57, filed December 8, 2004), and the Government's Response (Document No. 60, filed January 7, 2005), IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Early Termination of Probation is DENIED.
MEMORANDUM
I. BACKGROUNDOn April 24, 2002, defendant was sentenced to five (5) years probation for violating 16 U.S.C. § 470ee(a) by attempting to damage an archaeological resource — the Liberty Bell — a Class E felony.
Petitioner's supervision was transferred to his home District — the District of Idaho — where he has been supervised by the United States Probation Office. The Petition recites that petitioner has been in complete compliance with all conditions of probation in that he completed nine (9) months of community confinement, attended drug and alcohol counseling, has reported when required to do so, and has paid his restitution obligation of $7,093.00 in full. The Petition goes on to recite that petitioner has been gainfully employed while on probation and received a very favorable report from his employer. II. DISCUSSION 18 U.S.C. § 3564(c), authorizes a Court to order early termination of probation "if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and the interest of justice," and after considering the factors set forth in § 3553(a) relating to the imposition of a sentence. The latter provision provides that a sentence (1) must reflect the seriousness of the offense in order to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment; (2) afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (3) protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and, (4) provide defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner. The Court concludes that neither the conduct of the defendant nor the interest of justice warrants early termination of probation.
The conduct cited by defendant in support of his Petition is commendable. However, it is nothing more than what is required under the terms of defendant's probation. See Karacsonyi v. United States, 152 F.3d 918 unpub. op., 1998 WL 401273, *1 (2d Cir. 1998) ("Full compliance, after all, is merely what is expected of all people serving terms of supervised release"). Rather, early termination of probation should be ordered only in extraordinary circumstances. That is the reported policy of the Administrative Office for the United States Probation Office.
Defendant was convicted of a serious crime. The Government recommended an upward departure of 5 levels which would have called for a sentence of imprisonment. Instead, the Court imposed the maximum term of probation and, as a condition of probation, required that defendant spend the first nine (9) months in a community confinement center.
Considering all of the goals of sentencing — appropriate punishment, deterrence, protection of the public interest, and providing the defendant with an opportunity to rehabilitate himself, the Court concludes that the five-year probationary sentence it imposed is the appropriate sentence in the case. Defendant has not come forward with any evidence of extraordinary conduct which might warrant early termination of probation.