United States of America v. Terry Marshall Campie

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1901
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Terry Marshall Campie
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: November 12, 2024
Filed: December 9, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Terry Campie appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1)
motion for early termination of his supervised release. Upon careful review, we
1The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to terminate
Campie’s supervision. See United States v. Mosby, 719 F.3d 925, 930 (8th Cir.
2013) (district court’s denial of motion for early termination of supervised release is
reviewed for abuse of discretion).
The district court considered the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
and examined the facts and circumstances relevant to Campie’s motion. As the
district court noted, Campie has made considerable efforts to comply with the terms
of his supervision. But the district court “is in the best position to evaluate the
circumstances of each individual defendant.” Mosby, 719 F.3d at 930. The district
court properly evaluated those circumstances and the parties’ arguments, and we see
no abuse of discretion in its decision. See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 498 F.
App’x 657, 658 (8th Cir. 2013) (unpublished per curiam) (considering nature and
circumstances of offense in denying motion to terminate supervised release).
That the district court only recently became acquainted with Campie’s case
might be reason to scrutinize its decision more closely. See United States v. Norris,
62 F.4th 441, 450 (8th Cir. 2023) (summary denial of motion to terminate is
appropriate where court has “presided over [defendant]’s case from its inception”).
But where, as here, a district court adequately apprises itself of relevant facts and
circumstances and thoroughly explains its reasoning, there is no abuse of discretion.
See id. at 451; see also Mosby, 719 F.3d at 931 (no abuse of discretion in summary
denial of motion to terminate supervised release).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --