USA v. Woods

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
VANDELL WOODS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.R. No. 23-0038-MSM-LDA
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Mary S. McElroy, United States District Judge.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On June 9, 2021, Mr. Woods appeared before a Judge of the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts and plead guilty to one count of
conspiracy to engage in racketeering activities in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d).
Pursuant to the plea agreement the government agreed to recommend a sentence of
87 months of incarceration to be followed by a term of supervised release of 36
months. At sentencing on October 14, 2021, Mr. Woods was sentenced to time served
to be followed by 36 months of supervised release. 	His term of supervised release
began that day and was transferred to the District of Rhode Island on December 14,
2022. On December 7, 2003, Mr. Woods petitioned this court for early termination of
his supervised release with the aim of reducing the term by approximately ten
months. 	He cites his compliance with the terms of his supervision as well as his
mother’s diagnosis of terminal cancer in support of his petition for early termination.
Case 1:23-cr-00038-MSM-LDA Document 6 Filed 01/08/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
He argues that release would allow him to focus on rebuilding his life and supporting
his family although he gives no specifics as to how continued supervision would
impact those goals. The Government objects.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
After a defendant has served one year of ordered supervised release, a court
may terminate the remaining period of supervision and discharge the defendant from
supervision if, after examining the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B),
(a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(6), and (a)(7), “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)(1).
III. 	DISCUSSION
The government argues that the defendant’s compliance with the terms and
conditions of his supervision is what is required and should not be a factor in this
court’s determination of the appropriateness of early termination of supervision. 	The
statute directs the court to determine whether the reduction is “warranted by the
conduct of the defendant” so the court will consider the defendant’s conduct as one
factor in its analysis. 	The government also argues that the First Circuit has not
addressed the question of whether a defendant must show changed or extraordinary
circumstances before it can terminate supervision.
What is clear is that the court must address the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§3553(a) and decide whether, after balancing the statutory factors, considering his
Case 1:23-cr-00038-MSM-LDA Document 6 Filed 01/08/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
post release conduct, his proffered reason for termination, and the interest of justice,
early termination is warranted. In this case the Court finds that it is not.
After reviewing the relevant statutory factors, the Court concludes that Mr.
Woods’ lengthy history of gang involvement as well as his prior involvement with
dangerous criminal activity make continued supervision, for the short time left in this
case, necessary to protect the public and appropriate punishment. The case that
brought him before the court involved his participating in a gang related conspiracy
whose activities included murder, assault, and robbery. His offense of conviction is
serious, and the sentence must reflect that fact while also promoting respect for the
law. Continued supervision will give Mr. Woods the support he needs to continue
being successful. Finally, he has presented no reason that his continued participation
in supervision would impact his goals of supporting his ailing mother while
continuing to rebuild his life.
For these reasons the Defendant’s Request for Termination of Probation (ECF
No. 2) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Mary S. McElroy
United States District Judge
January 8, 2024
Case 1:23-cr-00038-MSM-LDA Document 6 Filed 01/08/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>