USA v. Caudill

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
United States of America, Case No: 2:23-cr-00046
Plaintiff, Judge Graham
v.
Melissa Caudill,
Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Melissa Caudill’s motion for
early termination of supervised release. Doc. 33. On September 22, 2023, this Court
sentenced Mrs. Caudill to a term of imprisonment of 12 months and 1 day, to be
followed by a term of supervised release of 3 years, for one count of Bank Fraud, 18
U.S.C. § 1344(2). Doc. 26. The Court also ordered her to pay $104,300.80 in
restitution. Id. Mrs. Caudill began her 3-year term of supervised release in June
2024. The government opposes her motion. Doc. 35. 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
Case: 2:23-cr-00046-JLG Doc #: 36 Filed: 02/26/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
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.
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).
Mrs. Caudill’s motion contains no specific reference to any § 3553(a) factors.
Doc. 33. Rather, Mrs. Caudill cites the extent to which she has “successfully complied
with all conditions of supervised release,” and argues that her “consistent payment
of restitution, stable employment, ongoing mental-health treatment, and violation-
free supervision make early termination appropriate in this case.” Id. # 144-45. Mrs.
Caudill has served more than 1 year of supervised release and therefore meets the
threshold requirement.
Nevertheless, the government opposes her motion for early termination. Doc.
35. The government points to the seriousness of Mrs. Caudill’s offense, which involved
the theft of $105,810.80 from an elderly man with dementia and his wife, over the
course of 4 years. Doc. 35, # 151; doc. 18, # 67. The government also disputes Mrs.
Caudill’s assertion that her compliance with the terms of her supervision justifies
early termination. Doc. 35, # 151. The Court agrees that Mrs. Caudill has not
identified justifiable grounds for early termination.
SENTENCING FACTORS
The Sixth Circuit directs the Court to consider the following sentencing factors
before denying a motion for early termination of supervised release:
Case: 2:23-cr-00046-JLG Doc #: 36 Filed: 02/26/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
(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
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 seriousness
of the offense. As described in the PSR, Mrs. Caudill’s offense conduct involved
abusing the trust of a vulnerable victim for over 4 years. Doc. 18, # 67. Beyond the
serious financial harm—the victimized couple was forced to sell their home—her
offense inflicted substantial emotional distress. Id. at # 68. The husband had
maintained a banking relationship with Mrs. Caudill for a decade prior to the start
Case: 2:23-cr-00046-JLG Doc #: 36 Filed: 02/26/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
of her offense conduct, which coincided with the onset of his dementia. Id. at # 65. He
“was unable to understand why Mrs. Caudill would steal money from them.” Id. at #
68. His wife believes that Mrs. Caudill’s actions led to his death. Id.
Nevertheless, she received a below-guideline (15 to 21 months) sentence of 12
months and 1 day. Her 3-year term of supervised release is on the lower range of the
guideline (2-5 years). Her compliance with supervision and her consistent payment
of restitution, while commendable, does not warrant further abbreviation of her
sentence.
The Court also finds that the sixth factor, concerning the need to provide
restitution, weighs heavily in this case. Though Mrs. Caudill has made some progress
with her consistent payments, she still owes over $90,000. Remaining on supervision
will help ensure that Mrs. Caudill continues to make progress toward this important
obligation.
CONCLUSION
After considering and weighing the relevant statutory factors and the
information in the record, the Court concludes that early termination of supervised
release is not warranted. Defendant’s motion for early termination of supervised
release (doc. 33) is therefore DENIED. This result does not preclude Mrs. Caudill
from seeking early termination of her supervised release in the future.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James L. Graham
JAMES L. GRAHAM
DATE: February 26, 2026 United States District Judge
Case: 2:23-cr-00046-JLG Doc #: 36 Filed: 02/26/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>