USA v. Lawrence et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 16-68
LANCE STOVALL 	SECTION “R” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	defendant 	Lance 	Stovall’s 	motion 	for 	early
termination 	of 	supervised 	release.1 	Stovall’s 	Probation 	Officer 	in 	the
Northern District of Texas is unopposed to his request for early termination;
the Government is opposed. 2 For the following reasons, the Court denies the
motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On November 14, 2018, Stovall pled guilty to one count of conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of
heroin and a quantity of fentanyl. 	This Court sentenced Stovall to 108
months 	of 	imprisonment 	and 	four 	years 	of 	supervised 	release. 3 	On
September 27, 2024, Stovall completed his term of imprisonment and began
1 	R. Doc. 556.
2 	R. Doc. 560.
3 	R. Doc. 360.
Case 2:16-cr-00068-SSV-KWR Document 561 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 4

2
serving his term of supervised release in the Northern District of Texas,
which is projected to expire on September 26, 2028.
In his motion, Stovall asks the Court to terminate his supervised
release. He has complied fully with all conditions of his supervised release
and has demonstrated compliance and rehabilitation. Stovall elaborates that
he has obtained a job at DHL Logistics, has enrolled in an associate’s degree
program, and has earned certifications, including as a Crane Operations
Rigger. 4 	Stovall asks for the Court to terminate his supervised release early
so that he can travel for work and obtain opportunities to advance in his field.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
The district court has authority to terminate supervised release at any
time after the expiration of one year if, after considering the factors set forth
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court is satisfied that such an action is warranted
by the conduct of the defendant and the interests of justice. 	18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e); accord United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59-60 (2000).
Among the factors a court must weigh are the nature of the offense, the
history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence to
deter criminal activity, the need to protect the public, the need to provide the
defendant with educational or vocational training, and the need to avoid
4 	R. Doc. 556.
Case 2:16-cr-00068-SSV-KWR Document 561 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 4

3
unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants. 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). District courts have considerable discretion in determining
whether the interest of justice warrants early termination. 	United States v.
Jeanes, 150 F.3d 483, 484 (5 th Cir. 1998). Mere compliance with the terms
of 	supervised 	release, 	absent 	more, 	is 	insufficient 	to 	justify 	an 	early
termination of supervised release because such compliance is expected and
required. 	See, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 729 F. App’x 474, 475 (7th Cir.
2018) (“[M]ere compliance with the terms of supervised release is expected,
and without more, insufficient to justify early termination.”).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Here, Stovall has demonstrated compliance with his supervised release
terms. 	Such compliance is insufficient, without more, to justify an early
termination of supervised release. Id.
Considering the 3553(a) factors, Stovall’s conduct, and the interests of
justice, the Court finds that an early termination of supervised release is
unwarranted. 	Stovall has served just over one-quarter of his term of
supervised release. 	Further, the Court finds that the Stovall’s success on
supervised release suggests that the supervised release is serving its intended
purpose. 	Stovall’s prior adjustment to parole following his term of state
incarceration was poor. Following his parole release for a state manslaughter
Case 2:16-cr-00068-SSV-KWR Document 561 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 4

4
conviction on November 20, 2015, Stovall’s parole was revoked because of
his arrest for the instant conduct.5 	Stovall is adjusting successfully to his
current term of supervised release. 	As the supervised release structure is
supporting that success, the Court finds it remains appropriately imposed
and 	provides 	the 	best 	opportunity 	for 	continued 	success 	in 	reentry.
Continued supervision appropriately reflects the seriousness of Stovall’s
offense and his history and characteristics.
The Court echoes the Government’s contention that should Stovall
receive a job offer outside of his supervising jurisdiction, it would be
appropriate for Stovall to petition this Court for a modification of his
supervised release requesting a transfer of his supervision to another district
and for other modifications as necessary to pursue such employment.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Stovall’s motion for early
termination of supervised release.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____ day of November, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5 	R. Doc. 296.
14th
Case 2:16-cr-00068-SSV-KWR Document 561 Filed 11/14/25 Page 4 of 4