The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
12-1041•United States of America v. Luis Rodriguez
12-1041Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitFeb 28, 2013
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-2382
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Luis Rodriguez
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: February 7, 2013
Filed: February 13, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After Luis Rodriguez had served a portion of the supervised-release term
imposed as part of his sentence for a federal bank-robbery offense, he moved for early
termination of supervised release, arguing that he had adjusted well to supervision,
had completed all required programs, and had met all rules and regulations. The
-- 1 of 2 --
district court denied the motion, and this appeal followed. After careful review of1
the record, counsel’s brief, and Rodriguez’s pro se brief, we affirm.
In the proceedings below, both the government and the probation officer who
was supervising Rodriguez opposed early termination. The probation officer, in
particular, noted in his written report to the court that Rodriguez had failed to make
several payments toward the large restitution obligation that was part of his criminal
sentence and incorporated in his supervised-release conditions. Noting that it had
considered the record and the parties’ arguments, the court stated that it had decided
to deny early termination, in part because the court believed that supervised release
would provide Rodriguez with more time and structure to meet his restitution
obligation. In these circumstances, we see no abuse of discretion in the denial of
early termination. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); United States v. Lowe, 632 F.3d 996,
997-98 (7th Cir. 2011) (denial of motion for early termination of supervised release
is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western1
District of Missouri.
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.