USA v. HINKLEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:07-cr-00043-JAW-1
)
BRIAN P. HINKLEY 	)
ORDER DISMISSING REQUEST FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF
SUPERVISED RELEASE
The 	court 	dismisses 	without 	prejudice 	a 	supervisee’s 	request 	for 	early
termination 	of 	supervised release. 	The 	supervisee 	has 	been 	convicted of 	the
possession 	of 	child 	pornography, 	and 	in 	weighing 	the 	incremental 	burden 	of
continued supervised release against the need to protect potentially vulnerable
victims, namely young children, the court has struck the balance in favor of the
children.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. 	Procedural History
On May 11, 2007, the United States of America initiated a criminal complaint
against Brian P. Hinkley, charging him with two counts of possession of child
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Compl. (ECF No. 1). On July
19, 2007, a federal grand jury issued a four-count indictment against Mr. Hinkley,
alleging four instances of possession of child pornography from December 8, 2004
through April 12, 2006. Indictment (ECF No. 14). On March 25, 2008, Mr. Hinkley
pleaded guilty to Counts Two and Four of the indictment, which alleged that he
possessed child pornography on July 21, 2005 and April 12, 2006. 	Min. Enty (ECF
Case 1:07-cr-00043-JAW Document 147 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
No. 67). 	On June 24, 2008, the Probation Office prepared a Revised Presentence
Investigation Report. Revised Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). On March 10,
2009, the Court sentenced Mr. Hinkley to 151 months of incarceration on Counts Two
and Four, imposed ten years of supervised release following incarceration, and
imposed a $200 special assessment. J. (ECF No. 105).
On November 19, 2025, Mr. Hinkley requested that his period of supervised
release be terminated early. Def.’s Req. for Early Termination (ECF No. 144) (Def.’s
Req.). 	On December 15, 2025, the Government filed its objection. 	Gov’t’s Resp. to
Def.’s Req. for Early Termination of Supervised Release (ECF No. 146) (Gov’t’s Opp’n).
Mr. Hinkley did not file a reply.
B. 	The Offense
The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) contains a description of the
offense conduct. 	PSR ¶ 2. 	It states that the investigation began on May 26, 2005,
when the Charleston, South Carolina Police Department executed a search warrant
on the dormitory room of a student at The Citadel, a military college in Charleston,
and recovered the student’s computer. 	Id. 	The student’s computer contained over
100 images of child pornography, and the student’s chatroom logs revealed that the
student had been corresponding with someone with the screenname jbullfrog678. Id.
The chats between the student and jbullfrog678 focused on their mutual interest in
having sexual relations with young females. Id. Jbullfrog678 expressed an interest
in befriending the parents of small children to gain access to them and to engage in
sexual encounters with them. Id. 	Jbullfrog678 sent images of child pornography to
the student and urged the student to send some to him. Id.
Case 1:07-cr-00043-JAW Document 147 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Law enforcement traced jbullfrog678 to a residence in Strong, Maine. Id. Law
enforcement was able to confirm that jbullfrog678 was Mr. Hinkley, and it also
determined that he had two sex-based convictions. 	Id. 	Based on this cumulative
information, law enforcement obtained a search warrant, which it executed on July
21, 2005. 	Id. 	Mr. Hinkley admitted to the searching officers that they would find
child pornography on his computer, that he used the screenname jbullfrog678, that
he had chatted with a student at The Citadel, and that he was attracted to females
around the age of ten. Id. As a result of a forensic analysis of Mr. Hinkley’s computer,
law enforcement found over 500 images of child pornography on his computer with
38 different minors previously identified as victims of child pornography offenses. Id.
¶ 3. The images depicted children who were toddlers to those about eight to ten years
old. Id.
On January 29, 3006, law enforcement investigated another tip about someone
possessing and posting child pornography. 	Id. ¶ 4. 	Law enforcement identified the
residence where the computer with the child pornography was located, and when the
officers arrived to investigate, Mr. Hinkley was there. Id. Mr. Hinkley admitted that
he also used this computer to access and trade child pornography images. 	Id. 	Mr.
Hinkley claimed that he was researching pedophiles and planned to write a book on
them, their motives, and the protection of children. 	Id. 	The police located Mr.
Hinkley’s laptop, and it revealed about 300 sexually explicit images of children,
including digital images and twenty-five videos. 	Id. 	These images showed sex acts
against children as young as one year old. Id.
Case 1:07-cr-00043-JAW Document 147 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Mr. Hinkley faced a mandatory minimum term of incarceration of ten years
and a maximum of twenty years. Id. ¶ 42 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2)). The PSR
calculated the applicable sentencing guideline range for incarceration as 151 to 188
months, a fine from $17,500 to $175,000, supervised release of two years to life, and
a special assessment of $200; no claims for restitution were made. Id. ¶¶ 42-51. Mr.
Hinkley was released from incarceration to supervised release on March 22, 2019,
and his term of supervision ends on March 21, 2029. Gov’t’s Opp’n at 2.
II. 	THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS
A. 	Brian Hinkley’s Request
Mr. Hinkley has written a two-page letter, requesting termination of his term
of supervised release. 	Def.’s Req. at 1-2. 	Mr. Hinkley notes that at that time
(November 2025), he had completed six years and 8 months of his ten-year term of
supervision. 	Id. at 1. 	He delineates the “significant progress” he has made in his
personal and professional life since the start of his supervision. 	Id. 	Mr. Hinkley
stresses that he understands the seriousness of his office and assures the Court that
he deeply regrets his actions and the hurt he caused. Id. Mr. Hinkley observes that
he has complied with all conditions of supervised release and has had no new
violations or offenses. Id.
Mr. Hinkley informs the Court that he was graduated from the University of
Southern Maine summa cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in linguistics and has
maintained steady employment. Id. Mr. Hinkley says that he has reconnected with
his family and is in a long-term, committed relationship. 	Id. at 2. 	Based on his
Case 1:07-cr-00043-JAW Document 147 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
progress and compliance, Mr. Hinkley requests that the Court terminate his period
of supervised release.
B. 	The Probation Office’s Position
In its opposition, the Government quotes the position of the Probation Office:
Mr. Hinkley’s supervision began on March 22, 2019, meaning that he
has completed over six years of his term. 	He remains fully compliant
with his conditions of supervision and owes no outstanding fines or
restitution. 	He 	has 	maintained 	stable 	employment, 	housing 	and
interpersonal relationships. By all accounts he is doing well. Our office
wishes to acknowledge the progress Mr. Hinkley has made; however, we
have declined to take an official position in support of early termination,
other than to note we would not object were the court to grant the
defendant’s pro se motion.
Gov’t’s Opp’n at 3.
C. 	The Government’s Opposition
The Government objects to Mr. Hinkley’s request for several reasons. 	First,
the nature of his offenses causes concern about the need to protect the public from
future crimes. 	Gov’t’s Opp’n at 5. 	Second, the request is not coming from the
Probation Office, but from the Defendant. 	Id. 	Third, the Government views the
Probation Office’s position as equivocal. 	Id. 	Fourth, the Probation Office has not
given the Government all the information necessary for the Government to take an
informed position. 	Fifth, the Government has no information about the technical
violation the Probation Officer noted has been resolved.
III. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), a court may “terminate a term of supervised
release and discharge the defendant at any time after the expiration of one year of
supervised release . . . .” The court must be “satisfied that such action is warranted
Case 1:07-cr-00043-JAW Document 147 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
by 	the 	conduct 	of 	the 	defendant 	released 	and 	the 	interest 	of 	justice.” 	Id.
“[C]ompliance with the terms and conditions of supervised release, though laudable,
is generally not grounds for early termination.” United States v. Flecha-Maldonado,
Crim. No. 01-00615-2 (RAM), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94549, at *5 (D.P.R. May 28,
2020) (quoting United States v. Farmer, No. 1:05-cr-00088-JAW, 2015 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 145925, at *2 (D. Me. Oct. 28, 2015)) (alterations omitted). 	In general, a
court’s determination of whether to reduce the term of supervision is based on
weighing 	the 	sentencing 	factors 	set 	forth 	in 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 3553(a), 	excluding
§ 3553(a)(2)(A). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Guzman-Madera, No. 1:22-
cr-10189-IT, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75246, at *2 (D. Mass. Apr. 16, 2025). 	The
statute’s exclusion of § 3553(a)(2)(A), which requires a sentence imposed “to reflect
the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense,” highlights the principle that “[s]upervised release fulfills
rehabilitative ends.” 	Guzman-Madera, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75246, at *2 (citing
United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59 (2000)).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
The Court dismisses Mr. Hinkley’s request for early termination. 	The Court
remains 	deeply 	concerned 	about 	the 	nature 	of 	Mr. 	Hinkley's 	crime. 	Child
pornography covers a wide range of conduct. 	Though rarely prosecuted, the term
captures images of people in their later teens, who are just under eighteen and
anatomically indistinguishable from young adults. 	18 U.S.C. § 2256(1) (“‘minor’
means any person under the age of eighteen years”). The law enhances the statutory
Case 1:07-cr-00043-JAW Document 147 Filed 02/03/26 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
penalties for possession of images of prepubescent minors or minors under the age of
twelve. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2).
As Mr. Hinkley’s crimes revealed an obsession with very young and vulnerable
members of society, it triggers the Court’s overriding obligation to protect those
unable to protect themselves. See United States v. Farmer, No. 1:05-cr-00088-JAW,
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145925, at *3-4 (D. Me. Oct. 28, 2015); United States v.
Chapman, No. 1:06-cr-00056-JAW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124770, at *3-4 (D. Me.
Sept. 8, 2014) (“The worry is that the females who were the object of Mr. Chapman’s
sexual interest were so young that they would be unable properly to protect
themselves”). In Chapman, the defendant was interested in girls as young as seven,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124770 at *3; here, Mr. Hinkley acknowledged that he was
sexually interested in females around the age of ten, see Prosecution Version at 2
(ECF No. 66), but the Court found at the sentencing hearing, that he was sexually
interested in girls around six years old. 	Tr. of Proceedings, Sentencing Proceedings
at 98:10-16. 	Some of the pornography on his computer included sexual assaults
against children as young as one year old. PSR ¶ 4.
In assessing Mr. Hinkley’s request, the Court reviewed the conditions of
supervised release for Mr. Hinkley and observes that, in contrast to many other
defendants, his conditions are relatively benign. J. at 3-4. The drug testing condition
was suspended. 	J. at 3. 	Two of the conditions, the prohibition against firearm
possession, and the sex offender registration requirement, are superfluous since they
are separately required as a matter of law. 	Id. 	The standard conditions require
Case 1:07-cr-00043-JAW Document 147 Filed 02/03/26 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
employment, avoidance of excessive drinking or use of drugs, and maintaining contact
with the supervising officer. 	Id. 	None appears onerous, and Mr. Hinkley has been
complying with those conditions.
The special conditions, including participation in a sex offender treatment
program and computer monitoring, are directly related to the type of crimes Mr.
Hinkley committed and, in the Court’s view, are valid. The Court acknowledges that
in today’s world computer monitoring could be problematic, but Mr. Hinkley has
furthered his education, is currently working, and is involved with the community
despite these restrictions. 	In his request, Mr. Hinkley did not mention that the
computer restrictions are affecting his professional or social life.
In the Government’s opposition, it refers to a technical violation that the
Probation Office found during Mr. Hinkley’s period of supervised release, but as the
Probation Office did not reveal the nature of the violation to the Government and Mr.
Hinkley says that he has had no violations, the Government makes the point that it
does not know what the technical violation was. Id. at 4-5. The Government assumes
that the Probation Office informed the Court about the technical violation in the
Probation Office’s memorandum to the Court. Id. at 3. But having carefully reviewed
the Probation Office’s memorandum, the Court is not certain what the technical
violation was and has not considered it in ruling on the pending request.
In evaluating Mr. Hinkley’s motion, the Court observes that, apart from
stating that he has complied with the terms of supervised release to date, he has
given no reason that the Court should allow an early discharge of his period of
Case 1:07-cr-00043-JAW Document 147 Filed 02/03/26 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
supervised release. 	Def.’s Req. at 1-2. 	As the Court noted in Chapman, the Court
“balances the incremental intrusion of these supervised release conditions on [the
defendant’s] life against the inherent risk of the conduct underlying his conviction.”
Chapman, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124770, at *5. 	“In making this assessment, the
Court focuses on the vulnerability of the potential victims, and strikes its judgment
in favor of the potential victims.” Id.
The Court is encouraged that Mr. Hinkley has so done well on supervised
release. 	However, in the Court’s view, “compliance with the terms and conditions
of . . . supervised 	release, 	though 	laudable, 	is 	generally 	not 	grounds 	for 	early
termination.” United States v. Seger, No. 1:98-cr-00065-JAW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
151558, at *17 (D. Me. Oct. 27, 2014) (citing United States v. Medina, 17 F. Supp. 2d
245, 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)).
V. 	CONCLUSION
The Court DISMISSES without prejudice Brian P. Hinkley’s Pro Se Request
for Early Termination of Supervised Release (ECF No. 144).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026
Case 1:07-cr-00043-JAW Document 147 Filed 02/03/26 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>