USA v. Murphy

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ISAAC MURPHY,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:22-cr-00056-SLG-MMS
ORDER ON MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED
RELEASE
Before the Court at Docket 73 is Defendant Isaac Murphy’s pro se Motion
for Early Termination of Supervised Release. At Docket 75, the Government filed
a response indicating that it does not oppose early termination of supervised
release.
BACKGROUND
On March 25, 2024, this Court sentenced Mr. Murphy to 21 months’
imprisonment and four years of supervised release after he pled guilty to
distribution of a controlled substance.1 On October 8, 2024, Mr. Murphy began his
1 Docket 67 at 1-3.
Case 3:22-cr-00056-SLG-MMS Document 76 Filed 10/07/26 Page 1 of 6

Case No. 3:22-cr-00056-SLG-MMS, United States v. Murphy
Order on Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release
Page 2 of 6
term of supervised release.2 Mr. Murphy’s term of supervised release is set to
expire on October 7, 2028.3
This Court previously denied Mr. Murphy’s prior motion for early termination
of supervised release without prejudice to renewal once Mr. Murphy had
completed half of his supervised release term, which occurred on October 7,
2026.4
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), a court may
terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant
released at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised
release, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure relating to the modification of probation, if it is satisfied that
such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and
the interest of justice[.]
A district court may only terminate supervised release after considering the factors
in § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7).5
Those factors are the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant; the need for the sentence imposed to afford
adequate deterrence, protect the public, and provide the defendant with training,
care, or correctional treatment; the sentencing range established by the United
2 Docket 71 (SEALED) at 1.
3 Docket 71 (SEALED) at 1.
4 Docket 72 at 4-5.
5 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
Case 3:22-cr-00056-SLG-MMS Document 76 Filed 10/07/26 Page 2 of 6

Case No. 3:22-cr-00056-SLG-MMS, United States v. Murphy
Order on Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release
Page 3 of 6
States Sentencing Guidelines and pertinent policy statements; the need to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities; and the need to provide restitution.
The United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual lists factors that a court
may consider in determining whether to terminate a remaining term of supervised
release:
(i) any history of court-reported violations over the term of supervision;
(ii) the ability of the defendant to lawfully self-manage (e.g., the ability
to problem-solve and avoid situations that may result in a violation of
a condition of supervised release or new criminal charges);
(iii) the defendant’s substantial compliance with all conditions of
supervision;
(iv) the defendant’s engagement in appropriate prosocial activities
and the existence or lack of prosocial support to remain lawful beyond
the period of supervision;
(v) a demonstrated reduction in risk level or maintenance of the lowest
category of risk over the period of supervision; and
(vi) whether termination will jeopardize public safety, as evidenced by
the nature of the defendant’s offense, the defendant’s criminal history,
the defendant’s record while incarcerated, the defendant’s efforts to
reintegrate into the community and avoid recidivism, any statements
or information provided by the victims of the offense, and other factors
the court finds relevant.6
The Introductory Commentary to United States Sentencing Guideline Part D
provides that a court should conduct an individualized assessment when
determining whether to impose a term of supervised release and, if one is imposed,
6 U.S. Sent’g Comm’n Guidelines Manual § 5D1.4, comment. (n. 1(B)) (Nov. 2025).
Case 3:22-cr-00056-SLG-MMS Document 76 Filed 10/07/26 Page 3 of 6

Case No. 3:22-cr-00056-SLG-MMS, United States v. Murphy
Order on Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release
Page 4 of 6
the appropriate length of supervised release and its terms. With an individualized
assessment, a “court can ‘assure that [those] who will need post-release
supervision will receive it’ while ‘prevent[ing] probation system resources from
being wasted on supervisory services for releasees who do not need them.’”7
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 provides the procedural mechanism for
modifying terms of supervised release.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Murphy contends that the Court should terminate his supervised release
term early because he has successfully completed more than one year of
supervised release, he has fully complied with all conditions of supervised release,
he has been gainfully employed, and he has traveled out of District with permission
from the Probation Office without incident.8 Further, Mr. Murphy maintains that his
“employment advancement, leadership involvement, community participation, and
full compliance demonstrate that he poses no risk to the community and has
successfully reintegrated into society.”9
In the memorandum submitted by the U.S. Probation Office regarding Mr.
Murphy’s prior motion for early termination of supervised release, the Probation
Officer confirmed that Mr. Murphy has “maintained stable residence with his wife
7 USSG Ch.5, Pt.D, intro. comment. (quoting S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 54 (1983)).
8 Docket 73 at 1-2.
9 Docket 73 at 2.
Case 3:22-cr-00056-SLG-MMS Document 76 Filed 10/07/26 Page 4 of 6

Case No. 3:22-cr-00056-SLG-MMS, United States v. Murphy
Order on Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release
Page 5 of 6
and children,” “demonstrated progress and upward mobility” in “terms of
employment,” and has actively engaged in substance abuse and mental health
treatment.10 Further, the Probation Office noted that Mr. Murphy “remains in full
compliance with the conditions of supervision.” At that time, “[t]he only objection”
U.S. Probation has to early termination of supervised release was that Mr. Murphy
has not yet completed half of his four-year term of supervised release.11
The Court has considered the applicable § 3553(a) factors. Mr. Murphy’s
offense was serious as it involved the distribution of illegal drugs. It appears that
Mr. Murphy’s incarceration and time on supervised release, as well as the
treatment that Mr. Murphy has engaged in, has deterred him from further illegal
activity. The Court also finds that there is no further need to provide Mr. Murphy
with training or care, to protect the public, or to provide restitution. Mr. Murphy has
performed well on supervision, he has maintained stable housing, demonstrated
upward mobility in employment, engaged in substance abuse and mental health
treatment, and has traveled out of District with Probation’s permission and without
incident on several occasions. Further, Mr. Murphy has now completed half of his
term of supervised release and therefore the Court finds that early termination of
supervised release is warranted at this time.
10 Docket 71 (SEALED) at 1.
11 Docket 71 (SEALED) at 2.
Case 3:22-cr-00056-SLG-MMS Document 76 Filed 10/07/26 Page 5 of 6

Case No. 3:22-cr-00056-SLG-MMS, United States v. Murphy
Order on Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release
Page 6 of 6
Therefore, Mr. Murphy’s Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release
at Docket 73 is GRANTED.
DATED this 7th day of October 2026, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:22-cr-00056-SLG-MMS Document 76 Filed 10/07/26 Page 6 of 6