United States of America v. Alzuarte-Rodriguez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-18-47-SLP-6
)
ERIC STEPHEN SELF, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
O R D E R
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Early Termination of Supervised
Release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) [Doc. No. 1699]. 	The Government has
responded, [Doc. No. 1701], and opposes Defendant’s requested relief.
Defendant was one of thirty-two defendants indicted on March 7, 2018. 	He was
charged in seventeen counts related to drug conspiracy, possession of methamphetamine
with intent to distribute, and unlawful use of a communication facility. 	PSR [Doc. No.
972]. 	Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to a one-count Superseding
Information 	for 	conspiracy 	to 	possess 	with 	intent 	to 	distribute 	methamphetamine.
Defendant was identified as the primary distributor of methamphetamine for the leader of
the conspiracy. 	Id. ¶ 18. 	On October 2, 2020, the Court sentenced Defendant to 120
months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. [Doc. No. 1486]. Defendant
has been under supervised release since November 12, 2024. See [Doc. No. 1699]; [Doc.
No. 1701] at ¶ 4.
Case 5:18-cr-00047-SLP Document 1702 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
In support of his request, Defendant states that he has largely complied with all
conditions of his supervised release; however, he acknowledges that he failed to report for
drug testing one time. 	[Doc. No. 1699]. 	The Government, however, notes that he has
failed to report on two occasions, though he promptly tested negative soon thereafter.
[Doc. No. 1701] at 4. 	Defendant further states that he has taken positive steps toward
rehabilitation and generally asserts that early termination would enable him to pursue
additional job opportunities that require more flexible commitment or travel.
In response, the Government offers that having conferred with the United States
Probation Office, it opposes early termination. 	The opposition largely stems from
Defendant’s criminal history, his two instances of noncompliance while on supervised
release, and the fact that he has only completed twenty percent of his supervised release.
Further, the Government notes that there is no claim or evidence that supervision has
hindered Defendant’s ability to maintain success and a positive trajectory.
A district court has discretionary authority to terminate a term of supervised release
and discharge the defendant at any time after expiration of one year of supervision if, after
considering certain factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the court is “satisfied that such action
is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.” See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); see also Rhodes v. Judiscak, 676 F.3d 931, 933 (10th Cir. 2012).
Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion, the Government’s Response and the
factors set forth in § 3553, the Court finds that early termination of Defendant’s term of
supervised release is not warranted. The Court encourages Defendant to continue with the
progress he has made during his period of supervision and to successfully complete the
Case 5:18-cr-00047-SLP Document 1702 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
remainder of his term. 	But the Court finds early termination of Defendant’s supervised
release is not warranted at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Early Termination of
Supervised Release [Doc. No. 1699] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of January, 2026.
Case 5:18-cr-00047-SLP Document 1702 Filed 01/02/26 Page 3 of 3