United States of America v. Hill

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-23-172-D
)
THOMAS ANTHONY HILL, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Letter [Doc. No. 4], which the Court construes as a
motion for early termination of supervised release. The government has filed a Response
in Opposition to Request for Early Termination of Supervised Release [Doc. No. 7].
Per the Transfer of Jurisdiction Order [Doc. No. 1], Defendant is currently serving
a four-year term of supervised release that began on August 11, 2023. Defendant was
charged in the Eastern District of Arkansas in a three-count indictment, charging him with
being 	a 	felon 	in 	possession 	of 	a 	firearm, 	possession 	with 	intent 	to 	distribute
methamphetamine, and use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime [Doc.
No. 6, Presentence Investigation Report, at 3]. Defendant pled guilty to one count of
possession 	with 	intent 	to 	distribute 	methamphetamine, 	in 	violation 	of 	21 	U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1). Id. Defendant was sentenced to 48 months of imprisonment and 4 years of
supervised release [Doc. No. 3, at 11].
Defendant first states that he has successfully completed three of the four years of
his supervision without any violations or negative incidents; however, the court record
Case 5:23-cr-00172-D Document 8 Filed 07/16/25 Page 1 of 4

2
reflects that Defendant has completed only two years of supervised release [Doc. No. 1, at
1]. Defendant further contends that he has fully complied with all conditions of his
supervision, has worked hard to reintegrate into society, and is currently facing significant
health issues that will require surgery. Defendant adds that his upcoming surgery may
affect his ability to consistently meet the obligations of supervision, such as drug testing.
Finally, Defendant states that his supervising officer has indicated that he would be a
suitable candidate for early termination.
The government opposes Defendant’s request. The government verified with the
United States Probation Office that Defendant has been generally compliant with his
supervision requirements, with the exception of missing four drug tests and stalling two
others. Defendant supplied satisfactory samples within days after each missed or stalled
drug test. The probation officer also reported to the government that Defendant has been
excused from the employment requirement because of his back issues and multiple back
surgeries. Finally, the probation officer communicated that the USPO does not support
Defendant’s 	request 	for 	early 	termination 	of 	supervised 	release 	“primarily 	due 	to
[Defendant’s] extensive criminal history which includes the threatened use of violence.”
[Doc. No. 7, at 3].
The government further contends that early termination should be denied due to the
seriousness of Defendant’s conduct. The government refers to portions of the Presentence
Investigation Report [Doc. No. 6], which reflect that police officers responded to reports
of a verbal dispute involving a gunshot; that officers had to hold Defendant at gunpoint for
him to comply; that Defendant had approximately 18 grams of methamphetamine in his
Case 5:23-cr-00172-D Document 8 Filed 07/16/25 Page 2 of 4

3
pocket at the time of his arrest; that there was a firearm holster on Defendant’s person at
the time of his arrest; and a chamber-loaded handgun was found nearby [Doc. No. 6, at
¶ 6]. The government also raises Defendant’s prior instances of firearm possession,
domestic violence, and assault [Doc. No. 7, at 4], and contends that his several previous
terms of imprisonment may suggest that Defendant is at risk for recidivism. Id. at 5. Finally,
the government notes that the USPO has accommodated Defendant’s two previous back
surgeries while on supervised release, and there is no indication in the record that further
accommodations could not be made for Defendant’s upcoming surgery. Id.
A district court has discretionary authority to terminate a term of supervised release
and discharge the defendant at any time after the expiration of one year of supervision if,
after considering certain § 3553 factors, 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(e)(1).
Upon consideration of Defendant’s motion in light of the information provided by
the government, the Court finds that early termination of Defendant’s term of supervised
release is not warranted at this time. Defendant has served almost half of his term of
supervised release. In his motion, Defendant does not indicate how his conditions of
supervised release impair his progress to reintegrate into the community. And, based on
the USPO’s previous accommodations made for Defendant’s previous back surgeries, the
Court is confident that Defendant can obtain satisfactory medical treatment for his back
issues while under supervision. The Court commends Defendant for the progress that he
has made during his period of supervision and encourages him to continue his positive
Case 5:23-cr-00172-D Document 8 Filed 07/16/25 Page 3 of 4

4
efforts. However, in light of all the circumstances in this case, the Court declines to
terminate Defendant’s term of supervision prematurely.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Early Termination
of Supervised 	Release [Doc. 	No. 	4] is 	DENIED, 	without prejudice to 	Defendant
reasserting his request at an appropriate time in the future.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16 th day of July, 2025.
TIMOTHY 	. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:23-cr-00172-D Document 8 Filed 07/16/25 Page 4 of 4