United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill, U.S. District Court Judge
before the Court is Defendant Earl Marvin Dixon's
(“Dixon”) Motion for Early Termination of
Probation. Dkt. 60. The Government filed a response opposing
Defendant's motion. Dkt. 61. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court will deny Dixon's Motion for Early
Termination of Probation. Dkt. 60.
September 14, 2016, Dixon was sentenced to 36 months of
supervised probation after pleading guilty to one count of
Conspiracy to Distribute Oxycodone. Dkt. 57. After serving a
little over two years of probation, Dixon filed the instant
motion for early termination on November 5, 2018. Dixon
argues that he is entitled to early termination because: (1)
he has fully complied with the terms of his probation, (2) he
has been placed in an administrative caseload reserved for
low level offenders, and (3) his continued probation is a
waste of government resources. Dkt. 60. The Government
opposes Dixon's request because: (1) the Court during
sentencing previously determined that three years of
probation was a just and necessary sentence and (2)
compliance with the terms of probation is not sufficient, in
and of itself, to merit early termination of probation. Dkt.
termination of probation is governed by 18 U.S.C. §
3564(c), which requires the court to consider factors set
forth in § 3553(a), to the extent they are applicable.
Those factors include, among other things, the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the need for deterrence, the
need to protect the public, and 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(a). After considering those § 3553(a)
factors, the court may “terminate a term of probation
previously ordered and discharge the defendant at any time
after the expiration of one year of probation in the case of
a felony, 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. § 3564(c). Simply complying
with the terms and conditions of probation is “not
sufficient to justify early termination.” United
States v. Evertson, No. 4:06-cr-206-BLW, 2011 WL 841056,
*3 (D. Idaho Mar. 7, 2011); see also United States v.
Bodybuilding.com, LLC, No. 1:12-cr-00115-BLW, 2015 WL
3616962, *2 (D. Idaho Jun. 9, 2015). Defendants seeking early
release must go “above and beyond.”
Evertson, 2011 WL 841056 at *1.
Judicial Conference on Criminal Law counsels the United
States Probation Office (“USPO”) that there is a
presumption in favor of recommending early termination of
probation where the person has been under supervision for at
least 18 months, is not a career drug or violent offender,
presents no identifiable risk to the public, and has not
committed any moderate to high severity violations of their
probation conditions. See Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol.
8, Part E, § 380.10(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3).
(1) the USPO, despite the presumption discussed above, has
chosen to remain neutral with respect to Dixon's motion
(Dkt. 60) and (2) the Government opposes Dixon's motion
(Dkt. 61), the Court has turned to and reviewed all the
§ 3553(a) factors. In particular, the Court notes the
Nature and Circumstances of the Offense
regarding the nature and circumstances of the charged
offense, Dixon was charged with possession with intent to
distribute Oxycodone, which is an opioid. Dixon started
selling small amounts of Oxycodone to his friends. As Dixon
continued to sell his prescription pills, the amount he sold
increased. By January of 2015, Dixon admitted that he was
selling 50 of his prescribed Oxycodone pills per month. Dixon
sold Oxycodone pills to a multitude of people, and at times
sold 40-50 pills a month to Alisa Bradshaw and her husband.
The Court finds that the nature and characteristic of the
offense merits continued probation.
History and Characteristics of Defendant
Dixon has avoided violating the terms of his probation, his
motion fails to identify any effort to go “above and
beyond” the terms of his probation in service of his
community. Evertson, 2011 WL 841056 at *1. As such,