U.S. v. Medina

Decision Date19 August 1998
Docket NumberNo. 89 CR. 0592(RWS).,89 CR. 0592(RWS).
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, v. Christobal MEDINA, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Honorable Mary Jo White, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York City (Kim A. Berger, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel) for U.S.

Christobel Medina, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SWEET, District Judge.

Christobal Medina ("Medina") has moved for an Order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), terminating the remaining period of his supervised release. For the reasons set forth below, Medina's conditions for supervised release are modified, and his motion to terminate the supervised release is denied.

Prior Proceedings and Facts

Indictment 89 Cr. 0592 was filed in August 1989, and charged Medina in three counts: (1) conspiring to distribute five kilos or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; (2) distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C); and (3) intent to distribute approximately two kilograms of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1); 841(b)(1)(B); 845(a).

On April 4, 1990, following a jury trial, Medina was convicted on all three counts. On July 25, 1990, this Court sentenced Medina to a term of imprisonment of sixty months, to be followed by a term of eight years of supervised release on each of Counts One through Three of the Indictment, to be served concurrently. Medina was also required to submit to periodic drug testing once every sixty days during this period of supervised release.

The term of supervised release was imposed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 845(a) which provided for a term of at least twice any term of supervised release authorized by § 841(b) for a first offense. Since § 841(b)(1)(B) then provided for a term of supervised release of at least four years given the absence of a prior felony drug conviction in the defendant's criminal history, an eight year period of supervised release was the statutory minimum.

Medina was released from custody on September 15, 1995. By letter dated May 16, 1998, Medina has requested that this Court terminate the remaining five year period of his supervised release term.

Discussion

The Court may terminate Medina's period of supervised release if he has served at least one year, if considering several statutory factors as well as the defendant's conduct, it is in the interests of justice, and the government is given notice and an opportunity to be heard. The relevant statute provides:

The court may, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6)(1) terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant released at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the modification of probation, if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice ....

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (emphasis added) [hereinafter, the Release Statute]. The factors referenced in the Release Statute which the Court must consider are:

(a) (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;

(2) the need for the sentence imposed —

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;

(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for-

(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, and that are in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; or

(B) in the case of a violation of probation or supervised release, the applicable guidelines or policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code;

(5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a)(2) that is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; and

(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.

18 U.S.C. § 3553.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the modification of probation and referenced by the Release Statute, provides that:

A hearing and assistance of counsel are required before the terms or conditions of probation or supervised release can be modified, unless the relief to be granted to the person on probation or supervised release upon the person's request or the court's own motion is favorable to the person, and the attorney for the government, after having been given notice of the proposed relief and a reasonable opportunity to object, has not objected.

Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(b).

Medina bases his request to terminate the remaining period of supervised release on various accomplishments that he achieved during the period of his incarceration, including various construction projects, as well as the fact that since the time of his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
168 cases
  • United States v. Harris
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 7 Julio 2017
    ...glass of supervised release’ " (quoting United States v. McKay , 352 F.Supp.2d 359, 361 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) )); United States v. Medina , 17 F.Supp.2d 245, 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ("While [the defendant's] post-incarceration conduct is apparently unblemished, this alone cannot be sufficient reason ......
  • United States v. Laughton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • 28 Febrero 2023
    ...the rule,' i.e., diligent service of the full period of supervised release imposed at sentencing.” Id. (quoting United States v. Medina, 17 F.Supp.2d 245, 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)). III. Laughton notes “several positive changes in [his] life”: (1) being productive “in general,” (2) not using any......
  • Whittingham v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 22 Mayo 2017
    ...full compliance with the terms and conditions of supervised release, standing alone, is insufficient. See United States v. Medina, 17 F. Supp. 2d 245, 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ("While [defendant's] post-incarceration conduct is apparently unblemished, this alone cannot be sufficient reason to te......
  • United States v. Etheridge
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 20 Noviembre 2013
    ...cannot be sufficient reason to terminate the supervised release since, if it were, the exception would swallow the rule." 17 F. Supp. 2d 245, 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).Therefore, a defendant must show something "of an unusual or extraordinary nature" in addition to full compliance. United States ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT