Information — United States v. Shibley (Dkt. 198, 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. 198 · 2026-03-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION - 1 
U.S. v. Eric Shibley, CR20-174JCC 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
1400 NEW YORK AVE. NW 
WASHINGTON, DC 20005 
 
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 
27 
28 
The Honorable John C. Coughenour 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 
AT SEATTLE 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
                        v. 
ERIC SHIBLEY,  
 
Defendant. 
 
NO. CR20-174-JCC 
 
UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE IN 
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S  
MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION 
OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 
 
 
 
 
 
In March 2022, this Court sentenced Defendant Eric Shibley to 48 months of 
custody with three years of supervised release for wire fraud, bank fraud and money 
laundering and ordered restitution. Dkt. #152. Shibley began supervision on May 29, 
2024. Dkt. #189. Shibley has completed approximately 22 months of his 36-month term 
of supervised release. Shibley’s term of supervision runs for another fifteen months, until 
May 29, 2027. Shibley moves the Court for early termination of his supervised release. 
Dkt. #196. 
Shibley’s underlying offense was significant and, at the time he committed the 
offense, Shibley was on probation. Dkt. #31. In fact, to effectuate his fraud scheme, 
Shibley repeatedly falsely certified that he was not on probation. Id. For these reasons, 
supervised release continues to serve a public safety, rehabilitative and correctional 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 198     Filed 03/27/26     Page 1 of 7

 
 
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION - 2 
U.S. v. Eric Shibley, CR20-174JCC 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
1400 NEW YORK AVE. NW 
WASHINGTON, DC 20005 
 
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 
27 
28 
function. Therefore, the United States joins the Probation Office in opposing early 
termination and asks that the Court continue Shibley on his existing term of supervised 
release. 
I. 
BACKGROUND 
On October 15, 2020, Shibley was indicted by a grand jury for 15 counts of wire 
fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering related to a scheme to submit false and 
fraudulent applications for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans and Economic 
Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL). Dkt. #31. During the early months of the COVID-19 
pandemic, Congress established the PPP to provide emergency loan assistance to 
businesses. Id. The Small Business Association (“SBA”) also issued loans through 
the EIDL program. Id.  
Shibley submitted numerous fraudulent loan applications to these programs. Id.; 
see also Dkt. #148. Shibley’s scheme involved submitting false and fraudulent 
information and documentation about entities that he controlled to participating lenders 
and the SBA, including false statements about employees and payroll. Dkt. #148. In his 
applications, Shibley falsely affirmed that he was not on probation, when in fact he was 
on probation for violating a no-contact order from Skagit County. Id. Indeed, at the same 
time he was applying for COVID-19 relief loans certifying that he was not on probation, 
Shibley was attending a weekly required 52-week domestic violence perpetrators’ 
program. See Dkt. #102. 
On November 18, 2021, a jury convicted Shibley of seven counts of wire fraud, 
three counts of bank fraud, and five counts of money laundering. Dkt. #127. This Court 
sentenced Shibley to 48 months of custody with three years of supervised release and 
ordered restitution. Dkt. #152. Shibley was released to supervision on May 29, 2024. 
Shibley’s three-year term of supervision runs for another fifteen months, until May 29, 
2027. 
The Probation Office opposes early termination. For the reasons discussed below, 
the United States joins the Probation Office in opposing early termination.  
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 198     Filed 03/27/26     Page 2 of 7

 
 
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION - 3 
U.S. v. Eric Shibley, CR20-174JCC 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
1400 NEW YORK AVE. NW 
WASHINGTON, DC 20005 
 
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 
27 
28 
II. 
LEGAL STANDARD 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3583(e)(1) provides that a court may 
“terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant released at any time 
after the expiration of one year of supervised release, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the modification of probation, 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). “The language of § 3583(e) gives district 
courts broad discretion in determining whether to grant a motion to terminate supervised 
release.” United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014).  
A motion for early termination of probation is reviewed with reference to the 
sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 1, “to the extent they are applicable.” 
18 U.S.C. § 3564(c). After considering these factors, the Court “may . . . terminate a term 
of probation . . . if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the 
defendant and the interest of justice.2 Id.; see also U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, GUIDELINES 
MANUAL § 5D1.4 (Nov. 2025) (“[a]ny time after the expiration of one year 
of supervised release and after an individualized assessment of the need for 
ongoing supervision, the court may terminate the remaining term of supervision and 
discharge the defendant if the court determines, following consultation with the 
government and the probation officer, that the termination is warranted by the conduct of 
the defendant and in the interest of justice.”3  
The Court enjoys substantial discretion in determining whether these factors are 
satisfied but must explain its decision with reference to the statutory factors and legal 
 
1 These factors include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, 
the need to afford adequate deterrence, protection of the public, and providing the defendant with needed 
educational or vocational training or other correctional treatment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), 
(a)(2)(D).   
 
2 18 U.S.C. § 3564(c) also requires a defendant serve at least one year of probation before early termination. That 
condition is satisfied here.  
 
3 Application Note 1(B) to § 5D1.4 sets forth factors a court “may wish to consider” in determining whether to 
terminate supervised release early, including: (i) any court-reported violations during supervision; (ii) ability of 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 198     Filed 03/27/26     Page 3 of 7

 
 
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION - 4 
U.S. v. Eric Shibley, CR20-174JCC 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
1400 NEW YORK AVE. NW 
WASHINGTON, DC 20005 
 
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 
27 
28 
standard. Emmett, 749 F.3d at 820 (observing that “[a] district court’s duty to explain its 
sentencing decisions extends to requests for early termination of supervised release”). The 
defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that early termination is warranted. United 
States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 559 n.9 (9th Cir. 2006) (defendant, as the party receiving 
benefit of early termination, is required to demonstrate termination is justified). While 
changed circumstances such as “exceptionally good behavior by the defendant” may 
warrant termination, such circumstances are not required. United States v. Ponce, 22 F.4th 
1045, 1047 (9th Cir. 2022) (emphasis added). 
III. 
ARGUMENT 
The nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the 
defendant, and the need to protect the public weigh in favor of continuing the existing 
term of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 
First, the extensive nature of Shibley’s fraud scheme should not be overlooked. As 
the government described in its Sentencing Memorandum, Shibley did not have a one-
time error in judgment; using various entities that he controlled, he submitted 26 PPP 
applications to various lenders and 13 EIDLs to the SBA. See Dkt. #148; Dkt. #31. In his 
applications, Shibley used false statements supported by fake tax forms and paperwork to 
obtain over $2.8 million in fraudulent loan funds. Id. Even after he was interviewed by 
law enforcement, Shibley continued to apply for PPP and EIDL money and attempted to 
take out ill-gotten gains in cash, until he was arrested. Dkt. #148. He also tried to conceal 
his fraud by providing lenders with fake names and social security numbers and passing 
fake tax forms to the grand jury investigating his conduct. Id.  
 
defendant to lawfully self-manage; (iii) substantial compliance with all conditions of supervision; (iv) defendant's 
engagement in appropriate prosocial activities and the existence/lack of prosocial support to remain lawful beyond 
supervision; (v) demonstrated reduction in risk level over period of supervision; and (vi) whether termination will 
jeopardize public safety, as evidenced by the nature of the defendant's offense, the defendant's criminal history, the 
defendant's record while incarcerated, the defendant's efforts to reintegrate into the community and avoid recidivism, 
any statements or information provided by the victims of the offense, and other factors the court finds relevant. 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 198     Filed 03/27/26     Page 4 of 7

 
 
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION - 5 
U.S. v. Eric Shibley, CR20-174JCC 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
1400 NEW YORK AVE. NW 
WASHINGTON, DC 20005 
 
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 
27 
28 
Second, Shibley applied for the PPP and EDIL loans while on probation for 
violation of a protection order. Dkt. #31; Dkt. #148. Yet in his applications, Shibley 
falsely certified that he was not then currently on probation, which was a requirement to 
be eligible for the loans. Id. In fact, on the applications, Shibley repeatedly (and falsely) 
certified that the information and documents he provided in support of the application 
were “true and accurate in all material respects.” Dkt. #148. Thus, Shibley knowingly and 
repeatedly violated his probation when committing the underlying fraud at issue here. 
Third, Sibley has a history of arrests and other documented misconduct. His 
history of domestic violence is clear, not only the no-contact order for which he was on 
probation at the time he conducted his PPP and EIDL fraud scheme, but also his arrest for 
domestic violence while he was released on bond in this case, such that his bond was 
revoked. Dkt. #29 (in order revoking bond, noting “Defendant’s criminal history appears 
to show that Defendant violated prior protection orders on at least four different 
occasions.”). Further, due to a finding of substandard care of patients with regard to 
prescribing controlled substances, in August 2020 Shibley’s medical license was 
suspended; in fact, the Washington Medical Commission determined that Shibley had 
continued to prescribe controlled substances even after his license had been summarily 
suspended in January 2020. Dkt. #148.   
Given the above, which shows that Shibley has a history of disregard of court 
orders, pretrial supervision, and probation, the government believes early termination in 
this case would be premature. Shibley has been on supervised release for less than two 
years of his three-year term. In addition, Shibley received a custodial sentence of 48 
months (dkt. #152), which was well below the applicable sentencing guidelines range of 
97 months to 121 months (see PSR ¶ 66), so early termination of his supervision is even 
less warranted. See, e.g., United States v. Krise, No. CR21-5181-BHS, 2026 WL 60411, 
at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 8, 2026) (in denying motion for early termination of supervision, 
observing that defendant “was sentenced to a custodial term well below the advisory 
guideline range” and “the consequence of imposing this more lenient sentence was the 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 198     Filed 03/27/26     Page 5 of 7

 
 
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION - 6 
U.S. v. Eric Shibley, CR20-174JCC 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
1400 NEW YORK AVE. NW 
WASHINGTON, DC 20005 
 
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 
27 
28 
ordered period of supervised release to protect the public and deter future misconduct.”);  
United States v. Rudy, No. 20-CR-00111-JD-1, 2025 WL 2799100, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 
1, 2025), aff'd, No. 25-4792, 2025 WL 2871860 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2025) (in denying 
motion for early termination of supervision, noting that defendant’s original sentence 
“was arguably on the lighter end of sentencing”).  
 The fact that he committed the underlying fraud while on probation for another 
crime suggests that Shibley may violate during supervision, even in a later year, which 
mitigates against allowing Shibley early termination. The government therefore believes 
Shibley should remain under supervision for a longer period. 
IV. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests that the Court 
deny Shibley’s Motion for Early Termination of Supervision.  
 
DATED this 27th day of March, 2026 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
LORINDA I. LARYEA 
Chief, Fraud Section 
Criminal Division 
U.S. Department of Justice  
 
 
s/ Laura Connelly 
 
 
 
LAURA CONNELLY 
Acting Assistant Chief 
Criminal Division, Fraud Section 
1400 New York Ave. NW 
Washington, DC 20005 
Tel.: 202-307-1423 
laura.connelly@usdoj.gov 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 198     Filed 03/27/26     Page 6 of 7

 
 
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION - 7 
U.S. v. Eric Shibley, CR20-174JCC 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
1400 NEW YORK AVE. NW 
WASHINGTON, DC 20005 
 
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 
27 
28 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that on March 27, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system to be served on counsel of record in this 
matter. 
s/ Laura Connelly 
 
 
 
LAURA CONNELLY 
Criminal Division, Fraud Section 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 198     Filed 03/27/26     Page 7 of 7

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wawd.290910.198.0.pdf

Size

183,096 bytes

SHA-256

99fd8d64a8dede158dcfb5996469c56fb208fa3070ddf3b7011ad18bca454452

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wawd.290910.198.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)