Indictment — United States v. Shibley (Dkt. 196, W.D. Wash. No. 2:20-cr-00174)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · No. 2:20-cr-00174-JCC · Doc. 196 · 2026-03-23 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION  
OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 
(United States v. Shibley, CR20-0174-JCC) - 1 
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER 
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700 
Seattle, WA 98101 
(206) 553-1100 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 
AT SEATTLE 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
ERIC SHIBLEY, 
Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
No. CR20-0174-JCC 
MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION 
OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 
Note on Motion Calendar: 
April 6, 2026 
 
Eric Shibley, through counsel, respectfully moves this Court to terminate his 
remaining period of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) because the 
statutory purposes of sentencing have been fulfilled and early termination is “warranted 
by the conduct of the defendant and the interest of justice.”  
 
The Probation Department does not endorse early termination. Mr. Shibley’s 
current probation officer, David Saelee, reported that Mr. Shibley started supervised 
release on May 29, 2024, and that Mr. Shibley has had no violations. As a result of the 
forfeiture of his home, Mr. Shibley’s restitution of $1.4 million has been fully paid. 
Ex. 1.  
I. 
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
 
On October 15, 2020, Mr. Shibley was charged by indictment with 15 counts of 
fraud, all related to a scheme to fraudulently obtain COVID relief funds. PSR ¶¶ 1, 7. 
Following a jury trial, Mr. Shibley was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 48 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 196     Filed 03/23/26     Page 1 of 5

 
MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION  
OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 
(United States v. Shibley, CR20-0174-JCC) - 2 
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER 
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700 
Seattle, WA 98101 
(206) 553-1100 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
months of custody with three years of supervised release, and this Court ordered 
$1,438,000 in restitution. Dkt. 152. He started supervision in May 2024. 
II. 
WHILE ON SUPERVISED RELEASE, MR. SHIBLEY HAS COMPLIED 
WITH CONDITIONS AND LIVED A LAW-ABIDING LIFE.  
 
Since his release from prison, Mr. Shibley has fully complied with the conditions 
of supervised release. He has also taken some hard lessons from his experience in 
prison, which “changed [him] for good.” Ex. 2. Mr. Shibley has numerous special 
conditions, including several related to financial monitoring, mental health treatment, 
and drug testing and treatment if warranted. Dkt. 152. Mr. Shibley has been engaged in 
counseling since early July 2024 where he receives mental health treatment related to 
his diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder. Ex. 3. Given the scope of conditions, 
Mr. Shibley’s compliance over the last two years demonstrates his commitment to a 
law-abiding life. 
III. 
THIS COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO GRANT 
EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 
 
After a year of supervision for a felony offense, § 3583(e)(1) allows this Court to 
“terminate a term of supervised release previously ordered and discharge the defendant 
. . . if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and the 
interests of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). The Ninth Circuit has stated that early 
termination of supervised release is not reserved for rare cases of exceptionally good 
behavior. Rather, “[t]he expansive phrases ‘conduct of the defendant’ and ‘interest of 
justice’ make clear that a district court enjoys discretion to consider a wide range of 
circumstances when determining whether to grant early termination.” United States v. 
Ponce, 22 F.4th 1045, 1047 (2022) (quoting United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 
(9th Cir. 2014), which quoted 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1)). 
 
When deciding whether to impose, modify, or terminate supervised release, 
§ 3583(e) directs courts to consider the person’s background; the need for the sentence 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 196     Filed 03/23/26     Page 2 of 5

 
MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION  
OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 
(United States v. Shibley, CR20-0174-JCC) - 3 
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER 
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700 
Seattle, WA 98101 
(206) 553-1100 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
to deter criminal conduct, protect the public, and provide necessary correctional 
treatment; the guidelines and policy statements; sentence disparities; and the need to 
provide restitution for victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (referencing the factors in 18 
U.S.C. § 3553(a) except the need for retribution, § 3553(a)(2)(A), and the kinds of 
sentences available, § 3553(a)(3)). In sum, early termination of supervised release is 
appropriate following one year of compliance where the record shows that further 
supervision is not necessary. Ponce, 22 F.4th at 1047 (district court enjoys discretion to 
consider a wide range of circumstances when determining whether to grant early 
termination). 
 
The Sentencing Commission recently revised Chapter 5, Part D, of the 
Guidelines Manual to encourage exercising greater individualized discretion about 
when and whether to modify conditions or to terminate supervision early. Amendments 
to the Sentencing Guidelines at 32 (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n Apr. 30, 2025), 
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendly-
amendments/202505_RF.pdf [https://perma.cc/2VBQ-3HMZ].1 The commentary to the 
amendment policy statement governing modification and termination of supervision 
includes a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider when determining whether to 
terminate supervision early. These factors include “the ability of the defendant to 
lawfully self-manage,” “the defendant’s engagement in appropriate prosocial activities 
and the existence or lack of prosocial support to remain lawful beyond the period of 
supervision,” and “a demonstrated reduction in risk level.” Id. at 54. The Commission 
reasoned that “[p]eople and their circumstances may change in and after prison, such 
that the original term and conditions may no longer be appropriate after the defendant’s 
release. Courts are encouraged to consider modifying the terms and conditions of 
supervised release whenever changed individual circumstances so warrant.” Id. at 34.  
 
1 The effective date for the amendments is November 1, 2025. 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 196     Filed 03/23/26     Page 3 of 5

 
MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION  
OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 
(United States v. Shibley, CR20-0174-JCC) - 4 
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER 
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700 
Seattle, WA 98101 
(206) 553-1100 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
A. 
Policy Statements of the Judicial Conference and the Sentencing 
Commission Support Mr. Shibley’s Early Termination 
 
The Judicial Conference of the United States offers guidance to Probation 
regarding early termination. It states there is a presumption in favor of recommending 
early termination for offenders who have been under supervision for 18 months and 
meet certain criteria. Those criteria were substantially revamped in 2018 to ones that 
“reflect[] a shift in focus from coercing a person to act lawfully to monitoring and 
fostering a person’s ability to self-manage lawful behavior and desire to act lawfully.” 
United States v. Shaw, 445 F.Supp.3d 1160, 1165 (D. Colo. 2020). 
Id. Notably, the Judicial Conference removed the factor of looking at an individual’s 
past history, instead focusing on the person’s current behavior while on supervision. 
 
Initially, Mr. Shibley’s underlying conviction is a non-violent offense. 
Mr. Shibley’s risk of recidivism is particularly low given his age, education, and the 
type of offense for which he was convicted. Each of these factors independently 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 196     Filed 03/23/26     Page 4 of 5

 
MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION  
OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 
(United States v. Shibley, CR20-0174-JCC) - 5 
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER 
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700 
Seattle, WA 98101 
(206) 553-1100 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
suggests a low risk of recidivism. See U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, Recidivism Among Federal 
Offenders: A Comprehensive Overview (May 2016), at 20; see also U.S. Sent’g 
Comm’n, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the Federal 
Sentencing Guidelines (May 2004). Indeed, fraud defendants have the lowest rate of 
recidivism for any offense category. Id. Finally, Mr. Shibley has no other felony 
convictions. His only prior conviction was for a misdemeanor no-contact order 
violation. PSR ¶ 37. 
 
Payment of restitution is often a concern with early termination of supervision in 
fraud cases. In this case, that concern is no longer present because restitution has 
already been satisfied through the forfeiture process.  
Mr. Shibley has demonstrated the ability to “lawfully self-manage himself 
beyond the period of supervision” and has “engaged in proper prosocial activities and 
receives sufficient prosocial support to remain lawful well beyond the period of 
supervision.” Id. § 360.20(c)(4), (6). 
IV. 
CONCLUSION 
 
For the reasons presented above, Mr. Shibley respectfully requests termination 
of the remaining period of supervised release. 
DATED this 23rd day of March 2026.  
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
s/ Dennis Carroll 
 
Senior Litigator  
 
Office of the Federal Public Defender 
 
Attorney for Eric Shibley 
 
I certify this motion contains 1,088 words in compliance with the Local Criminal Rules. 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 196     Filed 03/23/26     Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wawd.290910.196.0.pdf

Size

490,298 bytes

SHA-256

a89ac6e9141436d7769fbadebb67bb9a7b31b166665edf34ac312350281437b9

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wawd.290910.196.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)