United States of America v. Hill

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-23-172-D
)
THOMAS ANTHONY HILL, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Early Termination or Reduction of
Supervised Release [Doc. No. 9]. The government has filed a Response in Opposition to
Request for Early Termination of Supervised Release [Doc. No. 10].
Per the Transfer of Jurisdiction Order [Doc. No. 1], Defendant is currently serving
a four-year term of supervised release that began on August 11, 2023. Defendant was
charged in the Eastern District of Arkansas in a three-count indictment, charging him with
being 	a 	felon 	in 	possession 	of 	a 	firearm, 	possession 	with 	intent 	to 	distribute
methamphetamine, and use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime [Doc.
No. 6, Presentence Investigation Report, at 3]. Defendant pled guilty to one count of
possession 	with 	intent 	to 	distribute 	methamphetamine, 	in 	violation 	of 	21 	U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1). Id. Defendant was sentenced to 48 months of imprisonment and 4 years of
supervised release [Doc. No. 3, at 11].
Defendant first states that his term of supervised release “exceeds the applicable
guidelines,” which is incorrect. The guideline recommendation for Defendant’s supervised
Case 5:23-cr-00172-D Document 11 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 3

2
release was 3 years to life. [Doc. No. 6, at 17]. Defendant also asserts that he has complied
with every condition of supervision, all drug screens have been negative, all reporting
requirements have been met, and Defendant has maintained a stable residence and a firm
commitment to reintegrating into society.
The government opposes Defendant’s request. The government verified with the
United States Probation Office that Defendant has been generally compliant with his
supervision requirements. However, the probation officer communicated that the USPO
does not support Defendant’s request for early termination of supervised release “primarily
due to [Defendant’s] extensive criminal history which includes the threatened use of
violence.” [Doc. No. 10, at 3].
The government further contends that early termination should be denied due to the
seriousness of Defendant’s conduct. The government refers to portions of the Presentence
Investigation Report [Doc. No. 6], which reflect that police officers responded to reports
of a verbal dispute involving a gunshot; that officers had to hold Defendant at gunpoint for
him to comply; that Defendant had approximately 18 grams of methamphetamine in his
pocket at the time of his arrest; that there was a firearm holster on Defendant’s person at
the time of his arrest; and a chamber-loaded handgun was found nearby [Doc. No. 6, at
¶ 6]. The government also raises Defendant’s prior instances of firearm possession,
domestic violence, and assault [Doc. No. 10, at 4-5], and contends that his several previous
terms of imprisonment may suggest that Defendant is at risk for recidivism. Id. at 5.
A district court has discretionary authority to terminate a term of supervised release
and discharge the defendant at any time after the expiration of one year of supervision if,
Case 5:23-cr-00172-D Document 11 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 3

3
after considering certain § 3553 factors, 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).
Upon consideration of Defendant’s motion in light of the information provided by
the government, the Court finds that early termination of Defendant’s term of supervised
release is not warranted at this time. In his motion, Defendant relies mostly on his
compliance with his restrictions on supervised release. The Court commends Defendant
for complying with these restrictions and making progress toward reintegrating into
society. However, in light of all the circumstances in this case, the Court declines to
terminate Defendant’s term of supervision prematurely.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Early Termination
or Reduction of Supervised Release [Doc. No. 9] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19 th day of March, 2026.
TIMOTHY 	. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:23-cr-00172-D Document 11 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 3