USA v. Clinton Burns, III

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-14773
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:95-cr-06031-MGC-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CLINTON BURNS, III,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 2, 2021)
Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Clinton Burns, III, appeals the denial of his motion for early termination of
supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). The government, in turn, moves
for summary reversal of the district court’s order and a stay of the briefing
USCA11 Case: 20-14773 Date Filed: 09/02/2021 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
schedule, conceding that the district court abused its discretion because it denied
Burns’s motion without considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. In response,
Burns moves for an evidentiary hearing on remand.
Section 3583(e)(1) provides that the district court
may, after considering the factors set forth in [§] 3553(a)(1),
(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) . . .
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.”
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). “We review a district court’s denial of a motion for early
termination of supervised release for an abuse of discretion.” United States v.
Johnson, 877 F.3d 993, 997 (11th Cir. 2017).
After review, we GRANT the government’s motion for summary reversal
because there is no indication on this record that the district court considered the
requisite § 3553(a) factors when denying the motion for early termination.1 See id.
at 998 (holding that, when granting or denying a motion for early termination of
supervised release, “the court’s order, in light of the record, must indicate that the
court considered the [§ 3553(a)] factors enumerated in the provision”). Summary
1 Burns’s motion for early termination asserted that he was serving an illegal term of
supervised release and did not discuss substantively the § 3553(a) factors, and the government
did not file a response. The district court’s paperless order does not indicate whether it
considered the § 3553(a) factors.
USCA11 Case: 20-14773 Date Filed: 09/02/2021 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
reversal is appropriate under these circumstances. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v.
Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969) (explaining that summary disposition
is appropriate where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter
of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case”).
We DENY AS MOOT the government’s related motion to stay the briefing
schedule.
We DENY Burns’s motion for an evidentiary hearing on remand.
Evidentiary hearings are not required under § 3583(e)(1), and we are not persuaded
that one is necessary in this case. We note that the district court is in the best
position to determine if an evidentiary hearing is necessary, and Burns may file a
motion for an evidentiary hearing with the district court on remand if he so
chooses.
USCA11 Case: 20-14773 Date Filed: 09/02/2021 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --