USA v. Arndt et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
United States of America v. Leigh Ann Massengill
Case No. 3:17-cr-00091-TMB-2
Case No. 3:17-cr-00092-TMB-1
By: 	THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
PROCEEDINGS: 	ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
The matter comes before the Court on Defendant Leigh Ann Massengill’s Expedited Motion for
Early Termination of Supervised Release (the “Motion”).1 The Motion is opposed by Plaintiff
United States of America,2 unopposed by United States Probation and Pretrial Services Office
(“USPO”),3 and ripe for resolution.
Massengill moves for early termination of her supervised release on the basis of her full
compliance with the conditions of probation, her successful transition back into the community,
and her continued engagement in mental health treatment.4 Specifically, Massengill requests the
Court grant her Motion because, after her father’s recent passing, she “would like to reside with
her mother in Georgia, where she and her family can provide mutual support to one another.”5
Further, Massengill moves the Court to expedite consideration of the Motion because her mother
has arranged for Massengill to fly to Georgia on September 9, 2022.”6
USPO recommends the Court grant Massengill’s early termination.7 USPO reports that Massengill
“has 	maintained 	stable 	housing, 	attended 	all 	treatment 	appointments, 	taken 	her 	required
medications, and promptly communicated any relevant changes in circumstances to the probation
officer through her term of supervision.”8 However, USPO notes two “incidents of concern” that
occurred in January and May 2022, in which Massengill was pulled over after being seen dropping
two individuals off at “known drug houses.”9 No new charges were filed as a result of the traffic
1 Massengill I, Dkt. 90 (Motion); Massengill II, Dkt. 159 (Motion). Massengill previously pleaded
guilty in two cases: 3:17-cr-00092-TMB (“Massengill I”) and 3:17-cr-00091-TMB (“Massengill
II”) and was sentenced to 57 months’ imprisonment and three years of Supervised Release. Unless
otherwise specified, the citations below refer to docket numbers in Massengill I.
2 Dkt. 93 (Opposition).
3 USPO did not file a response to the early termination in Massengill I but filed a singular response
in Massengill II. Dkt. 164 at 1 (Amended USPO Memorandum).
4 Dkt. 90 at 2.
5 Id.
6 Dkt. 91 at 1 (Unopposed Motion for Expedited Consideration).
7 Massengill II, Dkt. 164 at 1.
8 Id.
9 Id.
Case 3:17-cr-00091-TMB Document 165 Filed 09/02/22 Page 1 of 2

2
stops.10 Despite these incidents, 	USPO 	recommends 	discharge 	from 	supervision 	because
Massengill “has complied with all directives given during her term and has successfully
reintegrated into the community.”11
The United States, however, opposes the Motion. The United States asserts that it is appropriate
to deny Massengill’s early termination due to her plea agreement, which included supervised
release, and her criminal history.12 Nevertheless, the Government recognizes Massengill’s
“success on supervision” and acknowledges that it is “commendable that the defendant has done
so well on supervision.”13
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) allows a court—after consideration of 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 Massengill and concludes that early termination of her supervised
release is warranted at this time.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion at Docket 90. FURTHER, it is hereby ORDERED
that Massengill’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: September 2, 2022.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Dkt. 93 at 2.
13 Id.
Case 3:17-cr-00091-TMB Document 165 Filed 09/02/22 Page 2 of 2