USA v. Jackson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 05-20018-01-JWL
Carlos Jackson,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In March 2013, Carlos Jackson pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to manufacture,
to possess with the intent to distribute, and to distribute 280 grams or more of a mixture
containing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, and one
count of unlawful use of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
924(c). 	Ultimately, 	Mr. 	Jackson 	was 	sentenced 	to 	consecutive 	terms 	of 	120 	months
imprisonment for the conspiracy count and 60 months imprisonment for the firearm count—the
statutory mandatory minimum sentences for both crimes.
He has now filed a pro se motion for early termination of supervised release (doc. 285).1
Both the government and the probation office oppose the motion. 	As will be explained, the
motion is denied without prejudice to filing another motion if additional circumstances warrant a
re-examination of the issue.
1 While Mr. Jackson resides in California and is supervised by the United States Probation
Office in the Central District of California, the court did not transfer jurisdiction over Mr.
Jackson’s supervision. The motion, then, is properly before this court.
Case 2:05-cr-20018-CM Document 289 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
A district court has authority to “terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the
defendant released at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release,” so long as
it considers the factors in § 3553(a) and the release is in the “interest of justice.” 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(1); United States v. Begay, 631 F.3d 1168, 1171–72 (10th Cir. 2011). Mr. Jackson was
released from custody in November 2024 and began serving his 5-year term of supervision. 	In
support of his motion, Mr. Jackson asserts that he is eligible for early termination and that early
termination is warranted as he has had no violations during supervision, no negative contact
with law enforcement, has remained sober, performs volunteer work in his community, and has
maintained stable employment and family relationships.
The 	government 	opposes 	the 	motion 	based 	on 	the 	seriousness 	of 	Mr. 	Jackson’s
underlying offenses of conviction and the fact that he has served just over 20 percent of his term.
The government also represents to the court that Mr. Jackson’s probation officer in California
opposes termination at this time. 	It is significant to the court that the probation office opposes
the termination of supervision because that office is the most familiar with Mr. Jackson’s
circumstances and conduct since his release and is in the best position to assess the need for
continuing supervision. While the government has not explained to the court why probation is
opposed to early termination, Mr. Jackson also has not filed a reply brief that might shed
additional light on this issue.
Thus, the court believes that the appropriate resolution of Mr. Jackson’s motion at this
juncture is to deny the motion without prejudice to refiling. 	The court encourages Mr. Jackson
to communicate with his supervising probation officer so that Mr. Jackson understands what
specific concerns that office has with respect to early termination. Mr. Jackson may file another
Case 2:05-cr-20018-CM Document 289 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
motion in the future if additional circumstances warrant a re-examination of the issue. The court
also cautions the government that if Mr. Jackson files another motion and the probation office
continues to oppose early termination, the court will expect the government to provide specific
reasons why probation opposes the request.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant’s motion for
early termination of supervised release (doc. 285) is denied.
IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 27th day of January, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/John W. Lungstrum
HON. JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Case 2:05-cr-20018-CM Document 289 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 3