USA v. Cao et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
United States v. Jennifer Delossantos
Case No. 3:18-cr-00059-TMB-3
By: THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
PROCEEDINGS: ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
The matter comes before the Court on Defendant Jennifer Delossantos’s Motion for Early
Termination of Supervision (the “Motion”).1 The United States did not file an Opposition.2 The
United States Probation Office (“USPO”) is “in agreement with early termination,” having
confirmed Delossantos’s “compliance with her supervised release and is in favor of early
termination.”3 The matter is now ripe for resolution. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion
is GRANTED.
On July 2, 2019, the Court sentenced Delossantos to the mandatory minimum of 60 months of
incarceration, to be followed by three years of supervised release, for one count of Use of a Firearm
During and in Relation to a Drug Trafficking Crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).4
While incarcerated, Delossantos completed educational, rehabilitative, and vocational courses.5
Upon release, she transferred to a halfway house and has transitioned back to life in the
community.6 In September 2021, she began her current employment at Victoria’s Secret, where
she has been promoted to a manager position.7
Delossantos now moves for early termination of her supervised release based on her continued
compliance with supervision conditions and her continued standing as “a productive member of
society.”8 She seeks to “contribute to a more secure future for her family” as she “is a single mother
of three children as well as the legal guardian for her teenage nephew.”9 To that end, she intends
to move to Nevada to pursue employment opportunities, to further her education in her chosen
1 Dkt. 253 (Motion for Early Termination of Probation/Supervised Release).
2 See Dkt. (absence). “The failure to respond to a non-dispositive motion . . . may be deemed an
admission that the motion is well taken.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(h) (“The District of Alaska Local Civil
Rules . . . also apply to criminal proceedings, to the extent not inconsistent with these rules.”
L. Crim. R. 1.1(b)).
3 Dkt. 253 at 2–3.
4 Dkt. 155 (Judgment).
5 Dkt. 168–2 (BOP Program Review).
6 Dkt. 253 at 2.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
Case 3:18-cr-00059-JMK-MMS Document 256 Filed 02/15/24 Page 1 of 2

field at the Euphoria Institute of Beauty Arts & Sciences, and to be near close family.10 She argues
that continued supervision would complicate these goals and has “hindered her ability to
relocate.”11 Further, she avers that USPO “confirms [her] compliance with her supervised release
and is in favor of early termination” of her supervised release term.12
The Court must consider certain factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) before terminating a
defendant’s supervised release.13 Those factors include “the nature and circumstances of the
offense, the need for deterrence, the need to protect the public, the need to provide defendant with
training or medical care, and the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines.”14 Additionally,
the Court must follow Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 and consider whether “it is satisfied
that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and in the interest of
justice.”15 “Occasionally, changed circumstances—for instance, exceptionally good behavior by
the defendant or a downward turn in the defendant’s ability to pay a fine or restitution imposed as
conditions of release—will render a previously imposed term of condition of release either too
harsh or inappropriately tailored to serve the general punishment goals of [§] 3553(a).”16
Having reviewed the briefing in this matter, the Court concludes that early termination of
Delossantos’s supervised release is warranted. Given Delossantos’s compliance with her release
conditions, including her consistent employment, her demonstrated commitment to providing her
family a secure future, and her goals to build a supportive and stable environment for her family
in Nevada, and considering USPO’s support for her early termination, the Court determines that
early termination of her supervised release is appropriate.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion at Docket 253. FURTHER, it is hereby ORDERED
that Delossantos’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: February 15, 2024.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) (citing § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6),
and (a)(7)).
14 United States v. Gross, 307 F.3d 1043, 1044 (9th Cir. 2002).
15 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).
16 United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32, 36 (2d Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Miller, 205
F.3d 1098, 1100‒01 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Lussier “in keeping with the penological objectives
and policies of § 3553(a).”).
Case 3:18-cr-00059-JMK-MMS Document 256 Filed 02/15/24 Page 2 of 2