USA v. Collins

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
NICK COLLINS
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 3:15-cr-00157
JUDGE RICHARDSON
ORDER
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Defendant’s 	“Unopposed 	Motion 	Requesting 	Early
Termination of Supervised Release and Supporting Memorandum” (Doc. No. 125, “Motion”). Via
the Motion, Petitioner asks the Court to terminate his 5-year term of supervised release, of which
he has served just over thirty-six (36) months. (Id.) Defendant indicates that the Probation Office
cannot support an early term of supervision due to Defendant being a career offender,1 but that the
Government does not oppose Defendant’s request for early termination of supervised release. (Id.
at 3). 	However, the Probation Office did indicate that Defendant has a positive attitude and
communicates well with them. (Id. at 3).
I. Background
Defendant’s five-year term of supervised release was imposed (by visiting United States
District Judge Marvin Aspen) on October 12, 2022, as part of his sentence imposed after his
conviction by guilty plea to possession of a firearm of a firearm subsequent to a felony conviction,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g). (Doc. No. 125 at 3). Defendant was sentenced to two (2) months
of imprisonment. (Id. at 2). On December 23, 2022, after serving that sentence, Defendant was
1 The Court wonders whether Defendant here actually meant “armed career criminal” rather than “career
offender.” At the time of sentencing in this case, Defendant had the former status, although he received
relief from the mandatory minimum sentence generally required for armed career criminals, which is why
he was eligible for a sentence of incarceration as low as two months.
Case 3:15-cr-00157 Document 127 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

released from custody and began serving his term of supervised release. See Inmate Locator,
Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last accessed December 2, 2025).
Defendant has had one supervised release violation petition filed which was later dismissed
due to mistaken identity, and no positive drug screens. (Doc. No. 125 at 3). However, Defendant
did struggle with alcohol and entered Freeman Recovery; he completed their program in February
2024. 	(Id.). He has passed every drug screen. (Id.). 	Since February 2024, Defendant has
maintained stable employment as a tattoo artist and has also since maintained his own residence.
He has reunited with his wife and children and also cares for his grandfather. (Id.). 2
Defendant contends that these facts warrant the termination of his supervised release.
II. Law and Analysis
Section 3583(e)(1) of Title 18, United States Code, permits early termination of supervised
release, after the expiration of one year of supervised release, if the Court is satisfied that such
action “is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583. When determining whether to grant early termination, courts must consider the following
factors, to the extent applicable to a particular case:
(1) 	“the 	nature 	and 	circumstances 	of 	the 	offense 	and 	the 	history 	and
characteristics of the defendant”; (2) the need “to afford adequate deterrence to
criminal conduct”; (3) the need “to protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant”; (4) the need “to provide the defendant with needed education nor
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment”; (5) the kinds
of sentence and sentencing range established by the United States Sentencing
Commission for the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable
category of defendant; (6) any pertinent policy statement issued by the United
States 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.”
2 The Court accepts as true each fact set forth in this paragraph, either because it is clear from the record in
this case or because it has not been contested by the Government.
Case 3:15-cr-00157 Document 127 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), & (a)(7). In addition
to the aforementioned factors under Section 3553(a), federal judicial policy calls for courts to
contemplate the following considerations when evaluating the appropriateness of early termination
of supervised release: (1) stable community reintegration, (2) progressive strides toward
supervision objectives, (3) no aggravated underlying convictions, (4) no history of violence, (5)
no recent arrests, convictions, alcohol or drug abuse, and (6) no identifiable risk to public safety.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 83 § 380.10(b) (2010).
After considering the applicable § 3553(a) factors, and given the lack of opposition by the
Government, the Court finds support for Defendant’s request for early termination of supervised
release. It is undisputed that Defendant has successfully transitioned into his community, complied
with his conditions of supervised release, and maintained steady employment. The Motion does
not establish that Defendant has done much more than what is expected of anyone on supervised
release, and so this is not the strongest showing the Court has seen. On the other hand, termination
is more warranted in this case given that Defendant has served a greater amount of time on
supervised release (nearly 36 months) and a higher percentage of his term (approximately 60
percent) than have most of the movants this Court encounters.
Thus, upon the application of the applicable § 3553(a) factors, and in consideration of the
lack of opposition, the Court finds that termination of supervised release is warranted at this time.
Therefore, the Motion (Doc. No. 125) is GRANTED, and Defendant’s term of supervised release
is hereby terminated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
ELI RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:15-cr-00157 Document 127 Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>