USA v. Hansen

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
United States of America v. Brent Ernst Hansen
Case No. 1:18-cr-00003-TMB-1
By: 	THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
PROCEEDINGS: 	ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
The matter comes before the Court on Defendant Brent Ernst Hansen’s Motion for Early
Termination of Supervised Release (the “Motion”).1 The Motion is unopposed by the United States
Probation and Pretrial Services Office (“USPO”),2 opposed by Plaintiff United States of America
(the “Government”),3 and ripe for resolution.
Hansen moves for early termination of his supervised release on the basis of his completion of
two-thirds of his three-year term of supervised release, compliance with the conditions of
supervised release, and continued sobriety and employment.4 Specifically, Hansen highlights that
he has made significant strides in a new career after successfully completing truck driving school.5
As a truck driver, Hansen has “been deployed to many of the large and devastating wildfires in
California over the past year.”6 Hansen notes that although he “has [two] prior charges related to
firearms,” he never “threaten[ed] or brandish[ed] a weapon” in either instance.7 Hansen requests
the Court terminate his supervision “because he no longer requires the resources that supervision
can offer him” and “wants to move to Oregon to be closer to his son” and pursue lucrative
professional opportunities as a truck driver and, potentially, a firefighter.8
USPO does not oppose the Motion.9 USPO reports that Hansen “has complied with drug testing
and all tests have been negative,” and has consistently “reported as directed” with no issues during
home visits.10 In addition, USPO notes that Hansen has “completed substance abuse treatment,”
“received vocational training and a certificate for truck driving,” and “maintained stable housing
and 	employment 	in 	the 	community.”11 Although 	USPO 	recognizes 	that 	Hansen 	“has 	a
1 Dkt. 56 (Motion).
2 Dkt. 58 (USPO Memorandum).
3 Dkt. 57 (Opposition).
4 Dkt. 56 at 2–4.
5 Id. at 2; Dkt. 56-1 (Exhibits).
6 Dkt. 56 at 3.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Dkt. 58.
10 Id.
11 Id.
Case 1:18-cr-00003-TMB Document 59 Filed 11/29/22 Page 1 of 2

2
considerable history of felony convictions,” USPO also recognizes that “he has put effort into his
rehabilitation and reintegration into society.”12
The Government, however, opposes the Motion based on its assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors.13 The Government asserts that Hansen “has been convicted of seven [] felonies prior to
the underlying conviction before this court,” some of which involved the possession of illegal
firearms and ammunition.14 The Government contends that Hansen’s status as a felon and his
previous drug use provide additional bases for denying the Motion. Nevertheless, the Government
also recognizes “the progress that the defendant has made in the two years under supervised
release.”15
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) allows a court—after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7)—to “terminate a
term of supervised release and discharge the defendant released at any time after the expiration of
one year of supervised released . . . if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of
the defendant released and the interest of justice.”
Having reviewed the briefing in this matter, and considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), the Court agrees with USPO and Hansen, concluding that early termination of his
supervised release is warranted at this time.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion at Docket 56. FURTHER, it is hereby ORDERED
that Hansen’s term of supervised release is terminated effective the date of this Order.
Entered at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge.
DATE: November 29, 2022.
12 Id.
13 Dkt. 57.
14 Id. at 3.
15 Id. at 5.
Case 1:18-cr-00003-TMB Document 59 Filed 11/29/22 Page 2 of 2