USA v. Nesby et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KENDRICK LATHAM,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 01-cr-40047-SMY
ORDER
YANDLE, Chief Judge:
Defendant Kendrick Latham was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute controlled substances (Count 1) and possession with intent to distribute
controlled substances (Count 2) on Jully 17, 2002. Latham was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of 480 months, to be followed by five years of supervised release on November 7,
2002 (Doc. 145). On August 3, 2021, Latham was placed on home confinement pursuant to the
CARES Act (Doc. 354). 	His term of imprisonment was later commuted through an executive
grant of clemency on December 12, 2024 (Doc. 432).
Latham’s term of supervised release commenced on December 22, 2024. 	Id. 	Now pending
before the Court is Latham’s 	pro se 	Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (Doc.
438), to which the Government and the United States Probation Office object (Doc. 440).1
A criminal defendant may, after serving at least one year of a term of supervised release,
move the sentencing court for the early termination of the remainder of his or her term. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(1). 	The court may grant a motion for early termination of supervised release after
considering relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) if it is satisfied that early termination is
1 	Defendant filed a Reply without seeking leave in violation of Local Rule 7.1 and this Court’s Case Management
Procedures (Doc. 442). Nevertheless, the Court has considered Defendant’s Reply.
Case 4:01-cr-40047-SMY Document 443 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 	2 	of 	3
warranted by the defendant’s conduct and the interest of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); 	United
States v. Lowe, 632 F.3d 996, 997 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, Latham had not yet served a full year of
his term of supervised release at the time his motion was filed on December 9, 2025. However,
because a year has now passed, and in the interests of judicial economy, the Court analyzes his
motion in light of the relevant § 3553(a) factors.
Latham argues he is entitled to early termination because he has been living in his
community for over four years,2 	has steady employment, has not failed or refused a drug test since
being placed in home confinement, and has had no issues with law enforcement. In opposing
Latham’s 	motion, Probation 	asserts 	that 	additional 	time is 	required 	to 	monitor Latham’s
reintegration into community. And the Government points to an email exchange from February
2023, in which the Probation Office requested terminating Defendant’s location monitoring status
and returning him to a halfway home for repeated refusal to cooperate with his probation officer,
concealment of his activities and associations, and attempts to manipulate his monitoring schedule.
The Court notes the conduct described in the Government’s response occurred three years
ago. 	However, Latham’s relatively short period of time on supervised release, the nature and
circumstances of the underlying offense, the need to address specific deterrence, and the need to
protect the public from future crimes by the defendant, combined with his refusal to cooperate
with his probation officer and concealment of his associations, weigh significantly against
termination of his supervised release at this juncture.
2 	Prior to beginning his term of supervised release, Defendant had been serving his term of imprisonment under home
confinement pursuant to the CARES Act for approximately three years. Doc. 440 at 2. However, home confinement
is considered part of a defendant’s term of imprisonment and is distinct from supervised release. 	See United States v.
Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021) (“An inmate in home confinement remains in custody of the Bureau.”);
See also 	18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2) (referring to an inmate serving the final stretch of his “term of imprisonment” in home
confinement as a “prisoner”).
Case 4:01-cr-40047-SMY Document 443 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 	3 	of 	3
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. 438)
is 	DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 27, 2026
STACI M. YANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 4:01-cr-40047-SMY Document 443 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>