United States of America v. Sharp

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
United States of America, 	) 	JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
)
Plaintiff(s), 	)
) 	CASE NO. 1:21CR48
vs. 	)
)
) 	ORDER
Kenneth Sharp, 	)
)
)
)
Defendant(s). 	)
Pending before the Court is Defendant Kenneth Sharp’s motion for early termination of
his supervised release. Doc. 118. 	Upon review, the motion is DENIED.
Under § 3853(e)(1), this Court may terminate a qualifying defendant’s supervised release
only after it considers certain § 3553(a) factors and determines that termination is “warranted by
the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). For aid
in interpreting § 3853(e)(1), the Sixth Circuit instructs this Court to look to an analogous
provision in an adjacent section of the code. The Circuit has held that how it has interpreted §
3582(c)(2) is instructive for an approach to § 3583(e)(1). And in considering § 3582(c)(2),
binding precedent has routinely and recently held that “the record must show that the district
court ‘reasoned through’ [the defendant’s nonfrivolous] arguments when ruling on a motion”
even when the district court denies the defendant’s motion. United States v. Davis-Malone, 128
F.4th 829, 834 (6th Cir. 2025) (quoting United States v. Goodwin, 87 F.4th 321, 327 (6th Cir.
2023)). In these cases, this Court need not “articulate its analysis of each sentencing factor as
Case: 1:21-cr-00048-JRA Doc #: 121 Filed: 02/02/26 1 of 2. PageID #: <pageID>

2
long as the record demonstrates that the court considered the relevant factors.” United States v.
Watkins, 625 F.3d 277, 281 (6th Cir. 2010).
The Court has considered the totality of the §3553(a) factors when reviewing Sharp’s
motion. 	The Court acknowledges that Sharp has completed roughly 90% of his supervised
release and is expected to be released from supervision on June 8, 2026. 	During his time on
supervision, Sharp has obtained and maintained full-time employment and not been summoned
before this Court for a violation. 	However, as recently as January 12, 2026, the day Sharp filed
his motion for early termination, he tested positive for marijuana – a violation of the terms of his
supervised release. 	While the Court has not taken formal action for this violation, it is
especially concerning considering that Sharp’s underlying conviction for felon in possession also
involved marijuana use. 	Considering Sharp’s recent relapse, the Court does not find it
appropriate to terminate his supervision early.
Based upon the above, Sharp’s motion for early termination of his supervised release is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 2, 2026 	/s/John R. Adams
Date 	John R. Adams
U.S. District Judge
Case: 1:21-cr-00048-JRA Doc #: 121 Filed: 02/02/26 2 of 2. PageID #: <pageID>