USA v. Aguilar Andrade

1
21-CR-0413-GPC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARIA GLORIA AGUILAR-
ANDRADE,
Defendant.
Case No.: 21-CR-0413-GPC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EARLY TERMINATION OF
SUPERVISED RELEASE
[ECF No. 121]
Before the Court is Defendant Maria Gloria Aguilar-Andrade (“Defendant”)’s
unopposed motion seeking an early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(1). ECF No. 121. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES
Defendant’s motion for early termination WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2023, Defendant pled guilty for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and
960 for Count I, Importation of Methamphetamine, and Count II, Importation of
Fentanyl. ECF No. 90. On June 12, 2023, this Court sentenced Defendant to 24 months
for each count to run concurrently, followed by three years of supervised release. ECF
Case 3:21-cr-00413-GPC Document 122 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 4

2
21-CR-0413-GPC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No. 101 at 1-3.1 The Defendant’s term of supervised release commenced on October 8,
2024.2 On February 19, 2026, with the assistance of counsel, Defendant filed an
unopposed motion seeking an early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(1). ECF No. 121.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under § 3583(e), a district 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… 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). In making its determination,
the statute directs district courts to consider factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id.
Such factors include: “(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant, (2) deterrence of criminal conduct; (3) protection of the
public from further potential crimes by defendant; (4) the need to provide the defendant
with educational, vocational training, medical care or other rehabilitation; (5) the
sentence and sentencing range established for the category of defendant; (6) any pertinent
policy statement by the Sentencing Commission; (7) the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty
of similar conduct; and (8) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.”
U.S.A v. Defendant(s), Case No. 2:3-13-CR-00183-MRA-2, 2026 WL 130588, at *1
(C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2026); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), (a)(4)-(7).
Neither unusual hardship nor exceptional circumstances are required to prevail on
a motion for early termination. United States v. Ponce, 22 F.4th 1045, 1047-48 (9th Cir.
2022). Further, “the language of § 3583(e) gives district courts broad discretion in
1 Page numbers reflect CM/ECF pagination.
2 Find an Inmate, Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc (last visited
March 6, 2026).
Case 3:21-cr-00413-GPC Document 122 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 4

3
21-CR-0413-GPC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
determining whether to grant a motion to terminate supervised release.” United States v.
Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014).
DISCUSSION
To prevail under § 3583(e), the defendant bears the burden falls to justify the early
termination of supervised release. United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 559 n.9 (9th Cir.
2006).
Here, however, Defendant only argues termination of supervised release is
warranted by her “exemplary conduct” while on supervision and “the interest of justice.”
ECF No. 121. Defendant’s motion asserts in a conclusory fashion that “all conditions
have been satisfied” and fails to offer concrete reasons supporting how the factors under
§ 3553 are met. Id. Beyond completing sixteen months of her term of supervised release,
Defendant fails to describe anything related to her exemplary conduct or how the early
termination of supervised release supports the interests of justice. Defendant only offers
that Probation has no objection to early termination and that the Government defers to
probation. Id.
While the Court acknowledges the unopposed nature of Defendant’s motion, the
conclusory statements are insufficient to demonstrate why relief should be granted.
United States v. Williams, No. 2:12-CR-463-JCM, 2019 WL 5543057, at *6 (D. Nev.
Oct. 25, 2019) (denying a motion for early termination of supervised release when
defendant failed to present any information to meet her burden for the court to consider);
see also Emmett, 749 F.3d at 821 (holding a district court must consider nonfrivolous,
factual arguments presented by defendants, establishing that the entire process must be
grounded in factual analysis).
Given these considerations, the Court finds that Defendant has not met her burden
of demonstrating that early termination of supervised release is justified.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:21-cr-00413-GPC Document 122 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 4

4
21-CR-0413-GPC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for early
termination of supervised release WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2026
Case 3:21-cr-00413-GPC Document 122 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 4