USA v. Wright

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 6:21-cr-60010
RYAN CURTIS WRIGHT 	DEFENDANT
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Ryan Curtis Wright’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Early
Termination of Supervised Release. (ECF No. 35). The Government has not responded, and the
Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.1
On March 24, 2023, Defendant was sentenced to twenty-one (21) months imprisonment
and three (3) years of supervised release for the offense of Felon in Possession of a Firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). (ECF No. 33). On May 9, 2023, Defendant
was released and began his three (3) years of supervised release. 	On August 22, 2024,
Defendant filed the instant motion. (ECF No. 35). In support of his motion, Defendant points to
maintaining a full-time job since being released from prison, his compliance and regular check-
ins, family communication, drug class completion, home visits, and lack of trouble or contact
with the police. 	(ECF No. 35, at 1). 	Defendant also states that supervised release is causing a
strain on his job and financials because his employers wish to send him “on the road” for work
but he is unable to do so. Id.
The United States Probation Office (“USPO”) confirms that, while on supervision,
Defendant 	has 	maintained 	stable 	housing, 	maintained 	full-time 	employment, 	completed
substance abuse treatment, and maintained negative drug test results. 	Further, the USPO states
1The Government has communicated to the Court via email that it does not oppose Defendant’s motion.
Case 6:21-cr-60010-SOH Document 36 Filed 01/10/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
that Defendant has completed eighteen (18) months of his thirty-six (36) month term of
supervised release. 	The USPO recommends that the Court consider terminating supervised
release.
A district court may terminate supervised release “if it is satisfied that such action is
warranted by conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.” 	18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(1). 	In making its determination, the Court must consider the factors set forth under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable. Section 3553(a) factors include, among
others, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the
defendant, and the need to provide the defendant with correctional treatment in the most efficient
manner.
Upon consideration of the above-mentioned factors, the Court finds that the instant
motion (ECF No. 35) should be GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of January, 2025.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
Case 6:21-cr-60010-SOH Document 36 Filed 01/10/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>