USA v. Womack

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ANTHONY WOMACK,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:8-cr-30023-DWD
ORDER GRANTING
THE EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
DUGAN, District Judge:
Before the Court is Defendant’s pro se Motion for the Early Termination of
Supervised Release. (Doc. 193). As explained below, the Motion is GRANTED.
On January 25, 2008, Defendant was charged with the distribution of cocaine base
under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). (Doc. 1). Thereafter, the Government filed an
Information Charging Prior Offense to subject Defendant to the enhanced penalty
provisions of § 841(b)(1)(B). (Doc. 22). Defendant was found guilty of that charge by a
jury on November 19, 2008. (Doc. 37). On December 20, 2012, Defendant was sentenced
to 262 months of imprisonment and 6 years of supervised release. (Docs. 128 & 131). 1 That
sentence reflected an adjusted offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of VI.
(Sealed Doc. 127). Defendant was a career offender, but his statutory maximum sentence
was lowered under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, P.L. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372.
Defendant’s sentence was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 148).
1Two of Defendant’s prior sentences were vacated. (Docs. 59, 62, 64, 89, 101, 102, 104, 116).
Case 3:08-cr-30023-DWD Document 196 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
On January 20, 2026, Defendant, who served approximately 17 years in federal
custody, filed his pro se Motion for the Early Termination of Supervised Release. (Doc.
193, pg. 3). He describes how an early termination of supervised release is warranted
“based on [his] exemplary post-release conduct, demonstrated rehabilitation, stable
employment, 	stable 	housing, 	lawful 	living 	conditions, 	meaningful 	community
contribution, and the interests of justice.” (Doc. 193, pgs. 1, 3-5). Early into his supervised
release, Defendant admits he tested positive for marijuana; however, he “immediately
accepted 	responsibility,” 	“complied 	fully 	with 	the 	Probation 	Office’s 	response,”
“voluntarily enrolled in and completed substance abuse treatment in order to ensure [his]
long-term success and accountability,” and otherwise “remained fully compliant with all
conditions of supervision and…passed all required drug testing.” (Doc. 193, pg. 3).
Plaintiff and the United States Probation Office, for their part, do not oppose
Defendant’s request. In fact, the United States Probation Office “has indicated that Mr.
Womack is a good candidate for early termination of supervised release,” stating:
While on supervision Mr. Womack had maintained stable housing at 201
East 	13th 	Street, 	Alton, 	IL. 	Mr. 	Womack 	has 	maintained 	full 	time
employment since the start of supervision in December 2024. Mr. Womack
has worked at St. Anthony’s Hospital and now for Designaire Heating and
Cooling.
Mr. Womack has only tested positive for an illicit substance on one
occasion. In June 2025 he tested positive for THC but has since completed a
treatment assessment and was not recommended for treatment. He has
additionally tested negative for illicit substances five times since his last
positive and has shown no indication of continued use.
In July 2025, Mr. Womack received a ticket for Disobeying a Peace Officer
for driving around cones at a July 4th celebration. He was fined $226.00 as
a result which he paid.
Case 3:08-cr-30023-DWD Document 196 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
Despite 	these 	two 	instances 	of 	non-compliance 	Mr. 	Womack 	has
reintegrated successfully into the community. He is currently employed full
time, has a stable residence, and is in a stable relationship with Peaches
Williams. Mr. Womack is currently focusing on his HVAC work and has
the intention to start his own company in the future. Mr. Womack has
satisfied all of his special conditions and is currently a low/moderate
offender, meaning he is seen once every 90 days. Thus, given Mr. Womack’s
progress and reintegration to the community the probation office supports
his request for early termination.
(Doc. 195, pgs. 2-3).
The United States Attorneys Office “agrees with the position of the United States
Probation Office.” (Doc. 195, pg. 3).
Now, Defendant’s pro se Motion is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), which states
the Court may, after considering a number of factors, “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.” While Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
32.1 ordinarily requires a hearing before a term of supervised release may be modified,
no hearing is necessary if the relief sought is (1) favorable to Defendant and does not
extend the term of probation or supervised release, and (2) the Government has received
notice and a reasonable opportunity to object to the action. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c)(2).
Here, the Court FINDS the above requirements are satisfied, such that a hearing
is not required. See id. The Court FURTHER FINDS, under § 3583(e)(1), Defendant has
completed more than a year of supervised release. See 28 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). The early
termination of Defendant’s supervised release is also warranted and in the interests of
Case 3:08-cr-30023-DWD Document 196 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
justice, as it appears he is unlikely to benefit from further supervision. See id. Therefore,
considering the factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court GRANTS the Motion
and ORDERS the termination of Defendant’s supervised release, effective immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2026
_________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
Case 3:08-cr-30023-DWD Document 196 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>