USA v. RODRIGUEZ

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 3:23-cr-00920-MAS Document6- Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 4 PagelD: <pagelD>

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Criminal Action No. 23-920 (MAS)

‘ MEMORANDUM ORDER

ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ,

SHIPP, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Alfredo Rodriguez’s (“Rodriguez”)
correspondence, which the Court construes as a Motion for Early Termination of Supervised
Release (“Motion”) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). (ECF No. 4.) The Court has considered
Rodriguez’s Motion under Local Civil Rule 78.1, which applies to criminal cases under Local
Criminal Rule 1.1, For the reasons stated below, the Motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 7, 2022, Rodriguez pleaded guilty to Count Two of a two-count Indictment
charging him with attempted possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance analogue,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 813 and 841(b)(1)(C); 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 3551, ef seg. (See
Indictment, ECF No. 2-1; see also Docket Sheet, ECF No. 2-3.)

On January 20, 2023, Rodriguez was sentenced to time served followed by five years of
supervised release, with special conditions. (See Jan. 2023 J., ECF No. 2-2.) On January 5, 2026,
Rodriguez moved for early termination of supervised release based on his compliance with the
supervised release conditions, asserting in part that he “fhas] fully complied with all conditions

imposed by the [C}ourt.” (Rodriguez Mot. 1, ECF No. 4.)

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 3:23-cr-00920-MAS Document6- Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 4 PagelD: <pagelD>

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Motions to amend or modify the conditions of supervised release are governed by
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), which allows the sentencing court to terminate supervised release “at any
time after the expiration of one year of supervised release” if, after considering the factors set forth
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court “is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the
defendant released and the interest of justice[.}” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). When reviewing the
Section 3553(a) factors, the Court need not make specific findings for each factor. United States
vy, Melvin, 978 F.3d 49, 52-53 (3d Cir. 2020). The Court need only state that it has considered them.
id. at 53.

Although the Third Circuit held that Section 3583(e)(1) does not require a finding of new
or unforeseen circumstances, it reasoned that, generally, only when new or unforeseen
circumstances warrant it, will a sentencing judge grant a motion for early termination of supervised
release under Section 3583(e)(1). /d. The Third Circuit reasoned “[t]hat is because, if a sentence
was ‘sufficient, but not greater than necessary’ when first pronounced, [the Court] would expect
that something will have changed in the interim that would justify an early end to a term of
supervised release.” /d. Importantly, “[d]istrict courts possess broad discretionary authority to
modify the terms and conditions of a defendant’s supervised release.” United States v. Wilson, 707
F.3d 412,416 3d Cir, 2013).

I. DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the Section 3553(a) factors and finds that early termination of
supervised release is not warranted here, See Melvin, 978 F.3d at 52 (“After considering these
factors, the court may provide relief only if it is satisfied that early termination is warranted by the

defendant’s conduct and is in the interest of justice.” (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1))).

Case 3:23-cr-00920-MAS Document6 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 4 PagelD: <pagelD>

As an initial matter, “mere compliance with the conditions of supervised release is
generally insufficient to support early termination.” United States v. Vasiliades, No. 96-217, 2022
WL 3701963, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2022) (citations omitted). While the Court commends
Rodriguez’s progress towards living a law-abiding life, compliance with the terms of supervised
release is what is expected of probationers, See United States v. Caruso, 241 F. Supp. 2d 466, 469
(D.N.J. 2003) (“[M]ere compliance with the terms of probation or supervised release is what is
expected of probationers, and without more, is insufficient to justify early termination.”’).

Additionally, the Court finds that Rodriguez has failed to articulate a basis as to why his
conditions of supervision negatively impact any aspect of his daily life. Further, after Rodriguez
filed the instant motion, he pled guilty in municipal court on May 4, 2026, to a charge of
2C:20-11B(1)-Shoplifting-Take Merchandise Without Paying-Retail Value Less Than $200
dollars, (See Pet., ECF No. 5.) Here, there are no new or unforeseen circumstances that warrant a
change in the Court’s sentence. Moreover, the Court finds the sentence appropriate, and an early
termination would not be in the interest of justice. As such, Rodriguez’s Motion is denied.

IV. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS on this 14th day of October, 2026 ORDERED that:

1. Rodriguez’s Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (ECF No. 4) is

DENIED.

Case 3:23-cr-00920-MAS Document6- Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 4 PagelD: <pagelD>

2. The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this Memorandum Order to Defendant by

reguiar U.S. mail.

& bs ane + i ;
MICHAEL A, SHIPP al
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE