United States of America v. Herron et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CR-19-175-G-2
)
REGENEA CAROL BERRY, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Now before the Court is Defendant Regenea Carol Berry’s pro se Motion for Early
Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. No. 97). The Government has filed a Response
(Doc. No. 98).
I. Background
In this case, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). On April 3, 2020, the Court sentenced Defendant to 70 months’
imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. See J. (Doc. No. 60)
at 2-3.
Defendant was released from prison and began serving her term of supervised
release on or about June 12, 2023. See Gov’t’s Resp. at 1 n.1.
II. Defendant’s Motion
Defendant seeks early termination of her supervised release after completing the
majority of its three-year term. In support of her request, Defendant highlights her desire
to seek more employment opportunities and travel with her children. See Def.’s Mot. at
Case 5:19-cr-00175-G Document 99 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 3

2
2. Defendant also represents that she has engaged in educational and volunteer activities
and has not committed any crimes since her release. See id.
III. Discussion
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), the Court may, after considering certain
statutory 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(d).
Although a hearing is required pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1
before the Court may modify a term of supervised release, “the Court need not conduct a
hearing if, upon consideration of the record, the Court determines that a requested
modification will not be approved.” United States v. Thinh Quoc Kieu, No. CR-02-177-
D, 2012 WL 2087387, at *1 (W.D. Okla. June 8, 2012); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c)(1).
The Government opposes Defendant’s request, noting the United States Probation
Office’s confirmation that “Defendant has not complied with all conditions of [her]
supervision” as to restitution repayment and alcohol testing. Gov’t’s Resp. at 2. The
Government suggests that being accountable to a probation officer “may be the resource
[Defendant] needs to stay on the right path.” Id. at 3.
As this Court has noted, “supervised release is part of the penalty for [Defendant’s]
offense.” Thinh Quoc Kieu, 2012 WL 2087387, at *2 (citing United States v. Cordova,
461 F.3d 1184, 1186 (10th Cir. 2006)). “One of its purposes is to provide rehabilitation
and oversight of the offender to deter their return to crime.” Id. (internal quotation marks
Case 5:19-cr-00175-G Document 99 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 3

3
omitted). A defendant’s compliance with the terms of supervised release generally “does
not, without more, warrant early termination because compliance with the terms is what is
expected.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Medina, 17 F.
Supp. 2d 245, 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
While Defendant has taken positive steps consistent with the purposes of
rehabilitation and reentry into society, that is what expected during a term of supervised
release. The Court does not find that Defendant’s post-incarceration conduct and
circumstances warrant termination of her term of supervised release. It therefore is not in
“the interest of justice” to discharge and release Defendant at this time. 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(1).
CONCLUSION
As provided herein, Defendant’s Motion for Early Termination of Supervised
Release (Doc. No. 97) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:19-cr-00175-G Document 99 Filed 03/11/26 Page 3 of 3