USA v. White

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
United States of America v. Lonnie J. White
Case No. 3:07-cr-00136-TMB-SAO
By: 	THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
PROCEEDINGS: 	ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Lonnie J. White’s Motion for Early Termination
of Supervised Release (“Motion”).1 The Government opposes White’s Motion.2 For the following
reasons, White’s Motion is GRANTED. Because the Court grants White’s Motion, the Court is
not required to hold a hearing.3
On December 29, 2008, a jury convicted White of Possession of Controlled Substances with Intent
to Distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and two counts of Distribution of
Controlled Substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)–(C).4 On April 17, 2009,
the Court sentenced White to a 240-month term of imprisonment.5 White’s sentence was reduced
to 151 months pursuant to Section 404(b) of the First Step Act on May 6, 2019.6 On May 7, 2019,
White was released from custody and began his ten-year term of supervised release.7
On May 12, 2021, White filed his Motion, asking the Court to terminate his supervised release or
reduce the term from ten to eight years.8 White notes that he successfully completed two years of
supervised release, during which time he has remained gainfully employed and supported his
family.9 He has also remained drug free, and his U.S. probation officer (“USPO”) “has not
experienced any difficulties supervising him.”10 White argues that early termination of his
supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) is appropriate based on his demonstrated
rehabilitation and the lower statutory term of supervised release currently applicable to his
offenses.11 At the very least, White argues that a reduction of the term of supervised release from
1 Dkt. 335 (Motion).
2 Dkt. 339 (Opposition).
3 See Fed. R. Crim P. 32.1(c)(2)(B); United States v. Alexander, No. 18-cr-00520-SI-1, 2020 WL
5691499, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2020).
4 Dkts. 128 (Minute Entry); 132 (Jury Verdict); 165 (Judgment).
5 Dkt. 165.
6 Dkt. 301 (Order re Reduction).
7 Dkts. 335 at 2; 344 (USPO Report); 345 (Amended USPO Report).
8 Dkts. 335 at 1, 4 (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c) (Revoking or Modifying Probation or Supervised
Release)).
9 Id. at 1.
10 Id. at 1–2, 4.
11 Id. at 3–4
Case 3:07-cr-00136-TMB-SAO Document 349 Filed 09/29/21 Page 1 of 3

2
ten to eight years is necessary to achieve proportionality with the new statutory penalties and
Sentencing Guidelines range applicable to his reduced sentenced.12
In its Opposition, the Government argues that given White’s “long criminal history of dangerous
drug activity” and “possession of firearms,” his “poor history of performance while on supervised
release,” his lack of remorse for his crimes, and his disciplinary record while in Bureau of Prisons’
(“BOP”) custody, White should remain on supervised release.13
The USPO assigned to White’s case initially did not oppose White’s Motion.14 The UPSO noted
that since his release in May 2019, White has maintained gainful employment and stable housing
with his partner and their two children.15 The USPO notes White has remained drug free, has not
incurred any new legal violations, has paid his special assessment in full, and has complied with
all conditions of supervised release.16 The USPO filed an Amended Report after learning that
White admitted to ingesting marijuana for medical purposes on August 17, 2021, in violation of
his conditions of supervised release.17 Based on the violation, the USPO now conditionally
opposes White’s Motion.18 However, the USPO notes that if the Court grants White’s Motion to
Modify Conditions of Supervised Release at Docket 342, the UPSO would not oppose White’s
Motion at Docket 335 “based on his efforts and success in other areas during this term of
supervision.”19
A defendant bears the burden to show that early termination of supervised release is appropriate.20
A court may, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), “terminate a term of
supervised release and discharge the defendant released 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[.]”21 The § 3553(a) 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.”22
Here, White has successfully completed two years on supervised release.23 White has remained
gainfully employed, supported his family, and complied with the conditions of his supervised
release. Although White’s conviction involved a serious drug offense, his successful reentry into
the community demonstrates that he is unlikely to reoffend or otherwise pose a risk to the public.
12 Id. at 4.
13 Dkt. 339 at 1–3. The Government opposed an earlier request for sentence modification. Dkt.
288 (Opposition to Reduction).
14 Dkt. 344 at 1.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Dkt. 345.
18 Id. at 1–2.
19 Id. at 2.
20 See United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 559 n.9 (9th Cir. 2006).
21 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).
22 United States v. Gross, 307 F.3d 1043, 1044 (9th Cir. 2002).
23 See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).
Case 3:07-cr-00136-TMB-SAO Document 349 Filed 09/29/21 Page 2 of 3

3
Similarly, adequate deterrence does not appear to be an issue in this case. Finally, the Court
previously granted White’s Motion to Modify Conditions of Supervised Release at Docket 342,24
and the August 17, 2021 incident of medical marijuana consumption does not undermine White’s
progress. The Court, after weighting the § 3553(a) factors, is satisfied that the ends of justice are
served by granting White’s Motion.
Accordingly, White’s Motion for Early Termination at Docket 335 is GRANTED, and White’s
period of supervised release is TERMINATED.
Entered at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge.
DATE: September 29, 2021
24 Dkt. 347 (Order Granting Motion to Modify).
Case 3:07-cr-00136-TMB-SAO Document 349 Filed 09/29/21 Page 3 of 3