Sixth Circuit Holds Denials of Motions for Early Termination of Supervision are Reviewable on Appeal and the Record Must Demonstrate the District Court Considered the 3553(a) Factors.  

    Edwin Tavarez moved to terminate his supervision early. The district court denied his motion by simply checking the box “The Request is Denied” on the Supervision Report. When Tavarez moved for access to the information underlying the district court’s decision, the district court denied his request. The district court also denied Tavarez’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal, concluding his appeal was barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). Tavarez timely appealed.

    On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) does not bar Tavarez’s appeal because that statute is inapplicable to motions for early termination of supervised release. Recognizing the Court’s precedent has “sent mixed signals regarding the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a),” the Court took the opportunity to clarify that “§ 3724(a) by its terms is completely inapposite in a case where the district court denies a defendant’s motion to modify his sentence.” p. 6. Section 3742(a) only applies to sentences newly imposed by the district court. It does not apply to reviews of requests to modify a sentence, such as motions for early termination of supervision. p. 6.

    Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), a district court may terminate a term of supervision after one year if, after considering the § 3553(a) factors, it is satisfied that termination is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and the interest of justice. Tavarez argued the record must also demonstrate the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors when the district court denies a motion for early termination. The Sixth Circuit agreed. pp. 8-9. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on interpretations of analogous provisions in § 3853(e)(1) and § 3582(c)(2), an unpublished opinion from this circuit, and decisions from several sister circuits. pp. 8-9.

    On the merits, the Sixth Circuit found “no indication that the district court considered the relevant § 3553(a) sentencing factors when denying Tavarez’s Early Termination Motion.” p. 10. The Court denied Tavarez’s motion by simply checking the box “The Request is Denied” on the Supervision Report. Although the Supervision Report recommended denying the motion, the reasons offered—his struggle to complete monthly reports timely and his having not completed half of his supervision term—were not related to any relevant § 3553(a) factor. p.10. The Court also rejected the government’s argument that it should look to prior orders where the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors. The Court noted that the most recent order explicitly considering the § 3553(a) factors was a year and a half old by the time Tavarez filed his motion for early termination. And “[c]rucially, even if the facts of Tavarez’s case were fresh in the district court’s mind, the lack of any explanation renders it ‘impossible to discern from the record how or why denying the motion to terminate comported with consideration of the relevant § 3553(a) factors.’” p. 10.

    Tavarez also appealed the district court’s denial of his request for access to the information underlying the district court’s decision, arguing the disclosure was required under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. The Court concluded Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 is inapplicable to early termination motions. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) explicitly directs courts to follow the rules relating to the modification of probation. Those rules are found in Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c), which contains no disclosure requirement. pp. 11-12.

    The Court vacated the district court’s order denying the motion for early termination and affirmed the district court’s denial of access to the information underlying the district court’s decision.