USA v. Woods

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOSHUA WOODS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:25-cr-30113-DWD
ORDER GRANTING
THE EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
DUGAN, District Judge:
Before the Court is Defendant’s pro se Motion for the Early Termination of
Supervised Release. (Doc. 3). As explained below, the Motion is GRANTED.
On June 21, 2013, Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to being a
felon in possession of a firearm (armed career criminal) under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(e)(1). See U.S. v. Woods, No. 13-cr-90-AGF, Docs. 25 & 48 (E.D. Mo.). On February 7,
2014, he was sentenced by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig to a term of imprisonment
of 120 months. See id. at Doc. 48, pg. 2. That sentence ran “concurrent with any sentence
imposed under Case No. 1222-CR03544-01 and consecutive to any sentence imposed
under Case No. 2106R-00682-01.” See id. Defendant was also sentenced to a term of three
years of supervised release and a special assessment of $100. See id. at 3, 5-6. Defendant’s
sentence was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit on January 8, 2015. See id. at Docs. 68, 69, 70,
71. On August 19, 2025, the jurisdiction over Defendant’s supervised release was
transferred to the undersigned in the Southern District of Illinois. (Docs. 1 & 2).
Case 3:25-cr-30113-DWD Document 7 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
On January 20, 2026, Defendant, who was released from federal custody on
August 12, 2024, filed his pro se Motion for the Early Termination of Supervised Release.
(Docs. 3; 6, pg. 2). Defendant has served more than a year of supervised release. (Doc. 3,
pg. 1). In support of his request, Defendant represents the following to the Court:
Since his release from the Bureau of Prisons, Defendant has demonstrated
exceptional compliance and rehabilitation, including:
x 	Full compliance with all conditions of supervised release;
x 	No violations or disciplinary issues; and
x 	Consistent communication and cooperation with supervising
authorities.
Defendant has maintained steady, lawful employment during his period of
supervision. His continued employment reflects stability, responsibility,
and a sustained commitment to a law-abiding lifestyle.
(Doc. 3, pg. 1).
Defendant notes his status as an armed career offender, but he “respectfully
submits that his post-release conduct, demonstrated rehabilitation, steady employment,
and consistent compliance support early termination.” (Doc. 3, pgs. 1-2). He also indicates
his supervision focused on personal growth, responsibility, and lawful living. (Doc. 3, pg.
2). It was viewed as “an opportunity to demonstrate lasting change.” (Doc. 3, pg. 2).
Plaintiff and the United States Probation Office, for their part, do not oppose
Defendant’s request, as “[h]e has abided with his supervision.” (Doc. 6, generally). In fact,
the United States Probation Office “has indicated that Mr. Woods is a good candidate for
early termination of supervised release.” (Doc. 6, pg. 2). It elaborated by stating:
Mr. Woods has completed a mental health evaluation and was not
recommended 	for 	treatment. 	All 	other 	special 	conditions 	have 	been
satisfied as well. Mr. Woods has maintained employment through this term
Case 3:25-cr-30113-DWD Document 7 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
of supervision. Upon his release he found employment with Terra Source
in Belleville, Illinois and has since moved to Precoat Metals in Granite City,
Illinois. On November 5, 2025, Mr. Woods was involved in a work-related
accident and suffered a concussion. He has since been out of work pending
medical clearance (documentation has been received to verify this).
Mr. Woods commenced supervision residing with his wife in O’Fallon,
Illinois but the relationship has since deteriorated, and Mr. Woods has
obtained his own apartment and since moved in with a relative. It should
be noted that throughout the struggles with his relationship Mr. Woods
took the steps to engage in marriage counseling and mental health
treatment to address his needs.
In terms of noncompliance Mr. Woods received one traffic citation on May
9, 2025, for Driving without Valid Driver’s License and Using a Cellphone
while Driving. Since receiving this citation Mr. Woods has obtained a valid
driver’s license. Mr. Wood’s has completed 7 drug tests to date while on
supervision and has not tested positive for any illicit substances.
Throughout this term of supervision, the probation office has noted a
visible change in Mr. Wood’s demeanor and pro-social thinking. This,
paired 	with 	his 	stable 	residence 	with 	a 	family 	member, 	full 	time
employment, and maintained sobriety; illustrates that Mr. Wood’s has
successfully reintegrated into the community and the probation office
would not object to his early termination.
(Doc. 6, pgs. 2-3).
The United States Attorneys Office “agrees with the position of the United States
Probation Office.” (Doc. 6, pg. 3).
Now, Defendant’s pro se Motion is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), which states
the Court may, after considering a number of factors, “terminate a term of supervised
release and discharge the defendant released at any time after the expiration of one year
of supervised release…if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the
defendant released and the interest of justice.” While Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
32.1 ordinarily requires a hearing before a term of supervised release may be modified,
Case 3:25-cr-30113-DWD Document 7 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
no hearing is necessary if the relief sought is (1) favorable to Defendant and does not
extend the term of probation or supervised release, and (2) the Government has received
notice and a reasonable opportunity to object to the action. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c)(2).
Here, the Court FINDS the above requirements are satisfied, such that a hearing
is not required. See id. The Court FURTHER FINDS, under § 3583(e)(1), Defendant has
completed more than a year of supervised release. See 28 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). The early
termination of Defendant’s supervised release is also warranted and in the interests of
justice, as it appears he is unlikely to benefit from further supervision. See id. Therefore,
considering the factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court GRANTS the Motion
and ORDERS the termination of Defendant’s supervised release, effective immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2026
_________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cr-30113-DWD Document 7 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>