USA v. White

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Criminal Action No. 15-00138-KD-M
)
ALEX WHITE, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
This action is before the Court on the Motion for Early Termination of Supervised
Release filed by Defendant Alex White (doc. 226) and the United States’ response (doc. 61).
Upon consideration, the motion is DENIED. 1
I. Background
Alex White pled guilty and was convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack
cocaine and using, carrying, etc. a firearm in furtherance of and in relation to the drug trafficking
offense. He was sentenced to a total term of ninety months – six months for the distribution
conviction and eighty-four months for the firearms conviction, to serve concurrently with his
“yet to be imposed state equivalent cases” (doc. 48). As to supervised release, White was
sentenced to serve three years for his conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack
cocaine, and five years for his firearms conviction, to serve concurrent. (Id.). His supervision
began February 11, 2022. 	White has completed almost three years of his five-year term.
1 No evidentiary hearing is necessary when the district court denies the motion. United States v.
Reagan, 162 Fed. Appx. 912, 913 (11th Cir. 2006) (“A refusal to terminate supervised release
does not constitute a modification of the term of supervised release. Accordingly, the district
court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying Reagan's motion.”); United
States v. Smith, 2010 WL 716495, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2010) (same) (citing United States
v. Reagan, 162 Fed. Appx. at 913).
Case 1:15-cr-00138-KD-M Doc# 62 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

II. Analysis
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), after consideration of the relevant factors in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court may “terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the
defendant released at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release, pursuant to
the provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the modification of
probation, 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. § 3583(e)(1). “The relevant § 3553(a) factors are: (1) the
nature and circumstances of the offense; (2) the defendant's history and characteristics; (3) the
need for deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with
educational and vocational training, medical care, or correctional treatment; (6) the applicable
guideline range; (7) any pertinent policy statements set forth by the Sentencing Commission; (8)
the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (9) the need to provide restitution.”
United States v. Cordero, 7 F. 4th 1058, 1069 (11th Cir. 2021) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B)–(D), (4)-(7)).
White argues that the relevant factors weigh in favor of early termination. He points out
that he has completed the requisite one-year of supervision. He also points that he has complied
with the terms of supervision, has cooperated with the U.S. Probation Office, and passed all
required drug and alcohol tests. He also reports that he was certified as a welder while
incarcerated and obtained gainful employment upon his release, and that he obtained a diploma
from Bishop State Community College of Trucking and now has a Commercial Driver’s License.
As a result, White states he has been gainfully employed since his release, and has established a
residence, obtained dependable transportation, established credit with his bank, and reunited with
Case 1:15-cr-00138-KD-M Doc# 62 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

his family. White states that he has worked hard to become a productive member of society and
has shown that he is rehabilitated.
The United States argues that the relevant factors do not weigh in favor of early
termination (doc. 61). Specifically, the nature and circumstances of the offenses, the history and
characteristics of the defendant, the need for deterrence of further criminal activity, and the need
to protect the public. The United States points out the serious nature and circumstance of
White’s offenses which involved a “dangerous mix of brandishing a gun in the context of drug
dealing” and White’s significant criminal history and characteristics. (Id., p. 3). The United
States points out that prior imprisonment did not deter White from continuing criminal activity,
and that he was gainfully employed during the time he engaged in drug-trafficking activities, and
therefore, gainful employment does not appear to deter him from criminal activity. The United
States asserts that the need to protect the public from further criminal activity by White weighs in
favor of continued supervision because White is “serial offender” who “presents a threat to the
public in light of his recidivist history.” (Id. p. 8). 2
The United States also argues that early termination would not meet the requirements in
the applicable policy statement that supervision is necessary to help a defendant transition back
to the community, and to provide rehabilitation and training programs, all to deter a return to
criminal activity. The United States again points to White’s criminal history of recidivism even
when employed. The United States also argues that the Court varied downward significantly
from the applicable guidelines range for the drug-related conviction and thus, White should not
be released prematurely from supervision. Last, the United States points out that many
2 The fifth factor, the need to provide the defendant with education and vocational
training weighs in favor of early termination. White has obtained a commercial driver’s license
while on supervision.
Case 1:15-cr-00138-KD-M Doc# 62 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

defendants who comply with all conditions of supervision – that which is expected of all persons
on supervision – serve their full terms of supervision, and therefore, the need to avoid sentencing
disparities does not weigh in favor of early termination.
The requirement that White serve at least one year on supervised release has been met.
Therefore, the Court considers the relevant factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), primarily the
“nature and circumstances of the offense” and White’s “history and characteristics” including his
criminal history, as well as the “need for the sentence imposed … to afford adequate deterrence
to criminal conduct [and] to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C). The Court has also considered the applicable guidelines range and the
Court’s prior decision to vary downward from the low end of the guidelines range. The Court
finds that although White has been compliant with conditions of supervision, obtained a
commercial driver’s license, and is gainfully employed, the relevant factors – including White’s
criminal history and the nature and circumstances of his offenses - weigh in favor of denying his
motion. Accordingly, the Court is not satisfied that early termination is warranted, 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(1), and White’s motion is due to be denied.
DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of January 2025.
s / Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:15-cr-00138-KD-M Doc# 62 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>