Court filing
Indictment - United States v. Tracy and Carolyn Wade
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2026-05-06 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60173-KMW · Doc. 305 · 2026-05-06 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
An order of U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham in United States v. Carolyn Denise Wade, No. 0:23-cr-60173-KMW, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered on the docket May 6, 2026 as Document 305. It denies without prejudice the defendant's pro se motion for early termination of supervised release (ECF No. 300), which the order states the government and the probation officer did not oppose. The order recounts a Superseding Indictment returned June 27, 2024 (ECF No. 188), a jury verdict of guilty on all counts, and a March 12, 2025 sentence of 3 years' supervised release, restitution and a $600 special assessment. Weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the court finds that general deterrence counts against early termination. It states it will consider granting early termination after two years of supervised release upon a new request.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
Case No. 23-60173-CR-WlLLIAMS/GRAHAM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
CAROLYN DENISE WADE
Defendant.
I
-----------
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant's Motion for early termination of
supervised release. (ECF No. 300). The Court also considers the Government's Response. (ECF No.
303)
THE COURT having reviewed the motion and pe11inent portions of therecord and being
otherwise fully advised in this matter, denies Defendant's motion.
I.
BACKGROUND.
On June 27, 2024, a grand jury returned a Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 188)
charging Defendant with conspiracy to commit wire fraud ( 18 U .S .C. § 1349), wire fraud ( 18
U.S.C. § 1343), conspiracy to make false statements to the Small Business Administration
(SBA) (18 U.S.C. § 371) and false statements to the SBA (15 U.S.C. § 645(a)). The charges
arose from Defendant fraudulently obtaining a loan through the SBA's Paycheck Protection
Program. Defendant proceeded to trial in October 2024, and a jury returned a verdict finding her
guilty on all counts with which she was charged (ECF No. 183). On March 12, 2025, the Court
sentenced Defendant to a term of 3 years' supervised release and imposed criminal monetary
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2026 Page 1 of 5
penalties consisting of restitution in the amount of $41 ,666 and a $600 special assessment (DE
241 ). Defendant's term of supervised included home detention for 90 days, among other special
conditions. The defendant's supervised release is scheduled to terminate on March 11 , 2028.
Defendant filed a Pro Se Motion requesting early termination from her term of
supervised release. Within the Motion, she indicated she has complied with her term of
supervised release conditions. She also repo1ied she is pursuing employment opportunities that
would allow her to better support herself and her family, but her active status on supervised
release is prohibiting numerous opportunities. Defendant's United States Probation Officer
("USPO") and the Government do not oppose the requested relief.
II.
LEGALSTANDARD
Supervised release is a form of post-confinement monitoring designed to facilitate a
defendant's transition from incarceration to community life. United States v. Hall, 64 F.4th 1200,
1202-03 (11th Cir. 2023). A defendant may request early termination of supervised release after
completing at least one year of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(l ); United States v. Johnson,
877 F.3d 993, 996 (11th Cir. 2017). After the first year, the court has the discretion to terminate a
term of supervised release and discharge the defendant if it is satisfied that such action is warranted
by the defendant's conduct and the interests of justic~. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(l ); Johnson, 877 F.Jd at
996.
When deciding on a motion for early termination of supervised release, the Court is required
to consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Those factors include: (1) the
nature and circumstances of the defendant's offense; (2) the defendant's history and characteristics;
(3) the need to deter criminal conduct, protect the public, and provide the defendant with education,
2
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2026 Page 2 of 5
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment; (6) the applicable guideline range;
(7) policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; (8) the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities; and (9) the need to provide restitution to any victims. 18 U .S.C. § 3 5 83 ( e )(1 );
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(l), (a)(2)(B)-(D), (a)(4)-(7).
A district court is not required to state that it considered each§ 3553(a) factor, so long as the
record reflects that the court considered the relevant factors. Johnson, 877 F. 3d at 996. United States
v. Harris, 258 F. Supp. 3d 137, 149 (D.D.C. 2017) (noting that complete compliance with supervised
release is merely expected and, by itself, does not provide the exceptional circumstances needed to
justify early termination).
III.
DISCUSSION
The Court first finds that Defendant is statutorily eligible to be considered for early
termination as she has been on supervised release for more than one year. However, based on the
following, the Court in its discretion finds that early termination should not be granted.
After considering the § 3553(a) factors, the Court does not find that early termination is
appropriate. United States v. Cordero, 7 F.4th 1058, 1069 (11th Cir. 2021). The Cou11 acknowledges
and commends Defendant for her continued compliance with the conditions of her supervised release
and for satisfying all financial obligations. Even so, compliance does not warrant early termination.
The Court also acknowledges the USPO repo11 that she has shown stable community reintegration
and is being supervised on the Low-Risk caseload, which is the least imposing form of supervision
in our district and currently there is no identifiable risk to the public. However, the Court must
consider "the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant" in imposing "a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the
3
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2026 Page 3 of 5
purposes set forth in paragraph (2)[.]" 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(l). Those purposes include:
(2) the need for the sentence imposed-
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide
just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or
other correctional treatment in the most effective manner[.]
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)- (D). The seriousness of the offense was considered by the Court
in imposing the Defendant's sentence. Because Defendant is on supervised release, primacy is placed
on the purpose of deterrence. Although the sentence imposed appears to have achieved the goal of
specific deterrence, granting early termination would undem1ine the general deterrence aspect of this
sentencing factor. Terminating Defendant's supervised release at this juncture would downplay the
seriousness of her criminal conduct. Moreover, terminating supervised release after such a short time
would send the wrong message to other offenders.
The Court encourages Defendant to continue her compliant behavior and successful
reintegration. While Defendant reports limitations in her employment opportunities, it is unclear
from Defendant's motion how and why her supervised release status affects or limits her
employment. Generally, USPO can assist defendants with securing job opportunities, and the
Court encourages that assistance here. Finally, upon filing a request for relief, the Court will
consider granting Defendant early termination after successfully completing two years of
supervised release.
4
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2026 Page 4 of 5
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for early termination of supervised
release (ECF No. 300) is DENIED without prejudice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers •o
ami, Florida, th~
~
of May 2026.
P .. :Wf u__
=
'
DONALD L. GRAHAM
UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 305 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2026 Page 5 of 5File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.654266.305.0.pdf
- Size
- 477,296 bytes
- SHA-256
- d2ee110a965b241edad0f7fb0ca92eae4396953893e7ededdc50e48f9b9d2ea8
- Original
- PACER (login required)