USA v. Madison

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
United States of America, Case No: 2:18-cr-00224
Plaintiff, Judge Graham
v.
Glen M. Madison, Jr.,
Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Glen Madison’s motion for
early termination of supervised release. Doc. 70. In 2019, this Court sentenced Mr.
Madison to six concurrent terms of 84 months of incarceration, each followed by
concurrent terms of supervised release. Mr. Madison began his five-year term of
supervised release on May 31, 2023. The government opposes his motion. Doc. 71. For
the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.
“Early termination of supervised release is a discretionary decision that is only
warranted in cases where the defendant shows changed circumstances-such as
exceptionally good behavior.” United States v. Atkin, 38 F. App’x 196, 198 (6th Cir.
2002) (citing United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32, 36 (2d Cir. 1997)). Under 18 U.S.C.
§3583(e), the Court may
(1) terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant
released at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised
release, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure relating to the modification of probation, if it is satisfied
that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant
released and the interest of justice.
Case: 2:18-cr-00224-JLG Doc #: 72 Filed: 12/19/25 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). Before denying a motion for early termination, the Court must
consider the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v.
Tavarez, 141 F.4th 750, 758 (6th Cir. 2025).
Mr. Madison’s pro se motion for early termination is a single page without
specific reference to any § 3553(a) factors. Doc. 70. He cites his consistent
employment, his strong support network, and his ability to stay out of legal trouble
during his term of supervision as reasons for early termination. Id. Mr. Madison has
served more than 1 year of supervised release, and therefore meets the threshold
requirement.
Nevertheless, the government opposes his motion for early termination. Doc.
71. The government points out that Mr. Madison has been testing positive for
fentanyl, leading to his recent entry into a detox program, which is to be followed by
a 28-day inpatient treatment program. Therefore, “given both the seriousness of
Madison’s underlying convictions and his recent drug relapse,” the government’s
position is that Mr. Madison and the community “would be better served by him
continuing with the ongoing assistance and guidance of his Probation Officer.” Id.
SENTENCING FACTORS
The Sixth Circuit directs the Court to consider the following sentencing factors
before denying a motion for early termination of supervised release:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
defendant's history and characteristics;
(2) the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct, protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant, and provide him with needed education or
Case: 2:18-cr-00224-JLG Doc #: 72 Filed: 12/19/25 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional
treatment in the most effective manner;
(3) the kinds of sentence and sentencing range established
from the defendant's crimes;
(4) pertinent policy statements issued by the United States
Sentencing Commission;
(5) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
among defendants with similar records who have been
found guilty of similar conduct; and
(6) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the
offense.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B)–(D) & (4)–(7)) (formatting
supplied); Tavarez, 141 F.4th at 758. However, the Court is not required to “articulate
its analysis of each sentencing factor as long as the record demonstrates that the
Court considered the relevant factors.” United States v. Watkins, 625 F.3d 277, 281
(6th Cir. 2010).
Of the factors listed above, the Court is most concerned with the need to
provide correctional treatment in the most effective manner. Given Mr. Madison’s
recent relapse into fentanyl use, continued supervision is appropriate in order to
provide him the best chance at successful rehabilitation. This decision does not
diminish the extent to which Mr. Madison has made legitimate progress, to the credit
and benefit of himself and his strong support network.
CONCLUSION
After considering and weighing the relevant statutory factors and the
information in the record, the Court concludes that early termination of supervised
Case: 2:18-cr-00224-JLG Doc #: 72 Filed: 12/19/25 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
release is not warranted. Defendant’s motion for early termination of supervised
release (doc. 70) is therefore DENIED. This result does not preclude Mr. Madison
from seeking early termination of his supervised release in the future.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James L. Graham
JAMES L. GRAHAM
DATE: December 19, 2025 United States District Judge
Case: 2:18-cr-00224-JLG Doc #: 72 Filed: 12/19/25 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>