USA v. Arellano et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 	EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	§
§
versus 	§ 	CASE NO. 1:17-CR-121-4
§
JESSICA BURGOS 	§
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the court is Defendant Jessica Burgos’s (“Burgos”) pro se Motion for
Modification of Conditions of Supervision and/or Early Termination of Supervised Release (#257).
Having considered the motion, the record, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that
the motion should be denied.
I. 	Background
On August 10, 2017, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Texas returned an
Indictment charging Burgos and four others with Conspiracy to Possess With Intent to Distribute
a Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Subsequently, Burgos pleaded guilty to
the charged offense on December 13, 2017, pursuant to a binding plea agreement. On March 28,
2018, the court sentenced her to 168 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a five-year term
of supervised release. Burgos is currently serving her federal sentence on home confinement in
Houston, Texas. Her projected release date is September 28, 2028, at which time she will begin
her five-year term of supervised release.
II. 	Analysis
A. 	Supervised Release
In her motion, Burgos requests “early transition to supervised release probation” pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) and (2) so that she can spend more in-person time with her minor son.
Case 1:17-cr-00121-MAC-ZJH Document 258 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3583(e)(1) authorizes a district court to terminate supervised
release at any time after the expiration of one year if, after considering certain of the factors set
forth in Section 3553(a),1 “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); accord United States v.
Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59-60 (2000); United States v. Peters, 856 F. App’x 230, 233 (11th Cir.
2021); Herndon v. Upton, 985 F.3d 443, 446 n.5 (5th Cir. 2021); United States v. Melvin, 978
F.3d 49, 52 (3d Cir. 2020); United States v. Cochran, 815 F. App’x 361, 363 (11th Cir. 2020);
United States v. Davies, 746 F. App’x 86, 88-89 (3d Cir. 2018). In addition, the United States
Sentencing Guidelines list supplemental factors that the court may wish to consider when
determining whether to terminate the remaining term of supervised release. 2 Under § 3583(e)(2),
the court may modify the conditions of supervised release “at any time prior to the expiration or
termination of the term of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2).
1 These factors include: the nature and circumstances of the offense and the defendant’s history
and characteristics; the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; the need to protect the
public from further crimes of the defendant; the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; the kinds
of sentences and sentencing ranges established for defendants with similar characteristics under applicable
Sentencing Commission guidelines and policy statements; any pertinent policy statement of the Sentencing
Commission in effect on the date of sentencing; the need to avoid unwarranted disparities among defendants
with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and the need to provide restitution to
any victims of the offense. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e).
2 Specifically, the Guidelines list: 	(i) any history of court-reported violations over the term of
supervision; (ii) the ability of the defendant to lawfully self-manage (e.g., the ability to problem-solve and
avoid situations that may result in a violation of a condition of supervised release or new criminal charges);
(iii) the defendant’s substantial compliance with all conditions of supervision; (iv) the defendant’s
engagement in appropriate prosocial activities and the existence or lack of prosocial support to remain
lawful beyond the period of supervision; (v) a demonstrated reduction in risk level or maintenance of the
lowest category of risk over the period of supervision; and (vi) whether termination will jeopardize public
safety, as evidenced by the nature of the defendant’s offense, the defendant’s criminal history, the
defendant’s record while incarcerated, the defendant’s efforts to reintegrate into the community and avoid
recidivism, any statements or information provided by the victims of the offense, and other factors the court
finds relevant. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.4, Application Note B.
2
Case 1:17-cr-00121-MAC-ZJH Document 258 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

Here, 	Burgos 	is 	still 	serving 	her 	federal 	sentence, 	albeit 	on 	home 	confinement.
Accordingly, Burgos does not meet the statutory criteria under § 3583(e)(1) of having served a
minimum of one year of her term of supervised release before petitioning the court for early
termination of the same. 	Accordingly, her request for early termination of supervised release
under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) is DENIED. Furthermore, to the extent that Burgos is seeking to
modify the conditions of supervised release, the court sees no reason to modify her conditions of
supervised release at this time. There is no indication that the conditions imposed at sentencing
will prevent her from accessing her son while she is serving her term of supervised release. 3
Thus, her request to modify the conditions of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) is
DENIED.
B. 	Home Confinement
Burgos also requests “modification of home confinement zoning to include the residence
where her son currently resides.” The Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has the sole authority
for determining a prisoner’s place of incarceration based on several statutory factors, including
any recommendation by the sentencing court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); United States v. Chaney,
823 F. App’x 278, 279 (5th Cir. 2020) (“The [BOP] has the sole authority to designate a
prisoner’s place of incarceration.”); Moore v. United States Att’y Gen., 473 F.2d 1375, 1376 (5th
Cir. 1973). 	Further, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) grants the BOP the discretion to determine the
3 Standard Condition of Supervised Release #3 provides: 	“You must not knowingly leave the
federal judicial district where you are authorized to reside without first getting permission from the court
or the probation officer.” Burgos currently resides in Houston, Texas, located within the Southern District
of Texas. 	Burgos’s motion indicates that her son resides in Humble, Texas, also within the Southern
District of Texas. Thus, she would not need to leave the federal judicial district where she resides to visit
her son. Moreover, her term of supervision is not anticipated to begin until September 28, 2028, and the
facts may change in the interim.
3
Case 1:17-cr-00121-MAC-ZJH Document 258 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

appropriateness of a pre-release custody placement (such as a residential re-entry center (often
referred to as a halfway house) or home confinement) based on certain statutory and discretionary
factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3624; Cheek v. Warden of Fed. Med. Ctr., 835 F. App’x 737, 740 (5th Cir.
2020). The BOP’s decision regarding home confinement is not subject to judicial review. See 18
U.S.C. § 3621(b); United States v. Powell, No. CR-15-496-4, 2020 WL 2848190, at *2 (E.D.
Pa. June 2, 2020) (“[T]o the extent that [Defendant] seeks to appeal the prison’s denial of home
confinement, such decision is not reviewable by this Court.”). Indeed, it is well established that
“[n]o inmate has a constitutional right to be housed in a particular place or any constitutional right
to early release.” 	Cheek, 835 F. App’x at 740. 	Accordingly, Burgos’s request that the court
interfere with the BOP’s determinations regarding the parameters of her home confinement is
DENIED.
III. 	Conclusion
In accordance with the forgoing, Burgos’s pro se Motion for Modification of Conditions
of Supervision and/or Early Termination of Supervised Release (#257) is DENIED.
4
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 13th day of March, 2026.
Case 1:17-cr-00121-MAC-ZJH Document 258 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>