USA v. Logan

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 22-10085-JWB
COREY LOGAN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s motion for early termination of supervised
release. (Doc. 19.) The United States Probation Office and the United States Assistant Attorney
have informed the court that they do not contest the motion. (Doc. 20.) For the reasons indicated
herein, the motion is GRANTED.
I. Background and Standard
Defendant pled guilty to possession of ammunition by a prohibited person in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Doc. 13.) On February 21, 2023, he was sentenced to 30 months to be
followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. (Doc. 16.) As of December 1, 2025, Defendant
has served 18 months of his supervised release term.1 Defendant now moves for early termination
of supervised release.
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 … 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. §
1 Defendant was released from prison on May 29, 2024. (Doc. 20 at 1.)
Case 6:22-cr-10085-JWB Document 21 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 3

2
3583(e)(1). Courts are also required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) to consider the following factors set
forth in § 3553(a): the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics
of the defendant; adequate deterrence; protection of the public; the need for effective education,
training, care or treatment; the sentencing guideline factors and range in effect at the time of
sentencing and any subsequent amendments; the pertinent Sentencing Commission policy
statements; the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities between similarly-situated
defendants; and the need to provide victim restitution. United States v. Halcrombe, No. 12-40030-
JAR, 2022 WL 1421560, at *2 (D. Kan. May 5, 2022) (citations omitted); See also United States
v. Fykes, No. 21-1222, 2022 WL 245516, at *2 (10th Cir. Jan. 27, 2022). 	Whether to grant a
motion to terminate a term of supervised release is a matter of sentencing court discretion. Rhodes
v. Judiscak, 676 F.3d 931, 933 (10th Cir. 2012).
II. Analysis
After considering the relevant factors, the court concludes the motion for early termination
of supervised release should be granted. Defendant’s consistent and positive recent performance
on supervised release is commendable and weighs in favor of the motion. 	Defendant has fully
complied with his conditions and has steady employment.
The government does not oppose early termination of supervised release as long as
Defendant had completed eighteen months of supervised release. Although Defendant had not yet
completed eighteen months of supervised release at the time he filed his motion, eighteen months
has now passed and Defendant has not had any violations and has been continuously employed.
The court finds that the statutory factors weigh in favor of terminating supervised release.
IV. Conclusion
Defendant’s Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.
Case 6:22-cr-10085-JWB Document 21 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of December 2025.
___s/ John W. Broomes_________
JOHN W. BROOMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:22-cr-10085-JWB Document 21 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 3