United States of America v. Jones et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO: 98-207
CLIFFORD BAPTISTE 	SECTION “H”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Clifford Baptiste’s Second Motion for
Early Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. 1708).
In September 1999, Defendant was sentenced by Judge Edith Clement
to a term of life imprisonment and 10 years’ supervised release for drug and
gun crimes. In December 2020, this Court reduced Defendant’s sentence to 300
months as a result of the First Step Act of 2018. Defendant was released from
federal prison on December 23, 2020. Accordingly, Defendant has completed
five years of his 10-year term of supervised release. On November 1, 2024,
Defendant filed a pro se motion requesting early termination of his term of
supervised release. This Court denied that motion, holding that Defendant had
failed to identify any “changed circumstances” warranting early termination of
his supervised release. On March 5, 2026, Defendant filed a second pro se
Case 2:98-cr-00207-JTM-MBN Document 1715 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release. The Government has
opposed his request.
Pursuant 	to 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	3583(e), 	a 	district 	court 	may 	terminate
supervised release at any time after the expiration of one year if, after
considering the factors set forth in § 3553(a), “it is satisfied that such action is
warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.”
“The factors to be analyzed generally concern the nature of the offense, the
defendant’s history, public safety, and the deterrent effect.”1 The district court
has 	broad 	discretion 	in 	considering 	requests 	for 	early 	termination 	of
supervised release.2 Courts have held that early termination “is warranted
only in cases where the defendant shows changed circumstances, such as
exceptionally good behavior.”3
Here, 	Defendant 	has 	again 	failed 	to 	identify 	any 	“changed
circumstances” warranting early termination of his supervised release. Indeed,
Defendant identifies almost no grounds supporting his request, beyond that
his probation officer supports his motion in light of his “exemplary conduct in
complying with all conditions” of supervised release. But “[c]ompliance with
the terms of supervised release and with the law alone is not enough to merit
early termination; such conduct is expected and required.”4 The Court finds
that 	given 	the 	nature 	of 	Defendant’s 	offense 	and 	his 	criminal 	history,
1 United States v. Hayes, No. 01-311, 2013 WL 5328874, at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 20,
2013). 2 United States v. Jeanes, 150 F.3d 483, 484 (5th Cir. 1998).
3 United States v. Jones, No. V-11-21, 2013 WL 2417927, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 4,
2013). 4 United States v. Pitman, No. 9:18-CR-16, 2022 WL 2328868, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June
28, 2022).
Case 2:98-cr-00207-JTM-MBN Document 1715 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3

3
continued supervision appropriately reflects the seriousness of his offense and
satisfies the goals of public safety and deterrence.
Accordingly;
IT 	IS 	ORDERED 	that 	early 	termination 	of 	supervision 	is 	not
warranted, and Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 30th day of March, 2026.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:98-cr-00207-JTM-MBN Document 1715 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3