USA v. Swearingen

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KIRK ALAN SWEARINGEN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Case No. 2:06-CR-651-DAK
Judge Dale A. Kimball
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s renewed Motion to Terminate, Or In the
Alternative, Reduce Lifetime Supervised Release to a Finite Term. This is Defendant’s third
such motion. The court recently denied his request in February 2026. There have been no
significant developments in Defendant’s supervision since that time.
On June 25, 2007, this court sentenced Defendant to 120 months incarceration and life
supervised release for possession of child pornography. Defendant violated his supervised
release and was again incarcerated for nine months. On October 21, 2021, this court sentenced
Defendant on a violation of supervised release to 9 months incarceration and life supervised
release. Defendant’s current term of supervised release began on January 11, 2022.
In September 2025, the monitoring software on Defendant’s internet capable device
captured images of minors and it could not be determined that adults were present. Defendant
had been participating in video calls with a family in Pakistan who have children under the age
of 18. Defendant’s probation officer instructed him to terminate any communications with
minors or calls with minors present. This did not result in a formal violation of his supervised
Case 2:06-cr-00651-DAK Document 91 Filed 05/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 3

2
release, but it causes the court concern that he would need to be instructed by his probation
officer about fully complying with his terms of supervised release.
Defendant moves for early termination or a reduced term of his supervised release, but
his history of having one violation that resulted in incarceration and an incident that could have
been a violation do not support any change to his current sentence. Defendant’s United States
Probation Officer has provided the court with a supervision summary that states Defendant does
not meet the criteria under the Guide to Judiciary Policy for assessing whether a statutorily
eligible offender should be recommended to the court as an appropriate candidate for early
termination.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), after considering the factors set forth in Section
3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6), the court may terminate a
term of supervised release “at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release . . .
if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the
interest of justice.” 	The factors to be considered in Section 3553(a) are those factors to be
considered in imposing a sentence, including “the nature and circumstances of the offense and
the history and characteristics of the defendant,” the applicable sentencing guidelines and any
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, and the need for the sentence imposed
to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment, to deter other criminal conduct, and
to provide the defendant with needed services. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Defendant’s requests for early termination repeatedly attack his lifetime supervised
release. The guidelines for supervised release in child pornography cases, such as Defendant’s
commonly impose lifetime supervised release. The nature of Defendant’s crimes is very serious
and has high recidivism rates. The imposition of the lifetime supervised release was appropriate,
Case 2:06-cr-00651-DAK Document 91 Filed 05/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 3

3
and Defendant has not provided any evidence to the court that would rebut the appropriateness of
that sentence. Defendant has had one violation and another concerning incident while on
supervised release. These instances demonstrate why a defendant in this type of case, such as
Defendant, needs continued monitoring. The goal of supervised release is to become certain that
a defendant is not likely to repeat the prior conduct. Defendant has not demonstrated a history of
compliance while on supervised release. The latest concerning incident was less than a year ago.
Defendant is in no position to request early termination or reduction of his term of supervised
release. Accordingly, the court concludes that there is no basis for reducing his term of
supervised release. Until Defendant has completed many years without any concerning incidents,
the court will not consider an early termination of his supervised release. His motion, therefore,
is denied.
Dated this 19th day of May 2026.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge
Case 2:06-cr-00651-DAK Document 91 Filed 05/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 3