Government Response to Early Termination Motion — United States v. Bully (S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 9:23-cr-80141-DMM · Doc. 35 · 2026-03-12 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 23-CR-80141-Middlebrooks 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
EMMANUEL BULLY, JR., 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO TERMINATE SUPERVISED RELEASE 
 
The United States respectfully opposes defendant Emmanuel Bully, Jr.’s Motion for 
Early Termination of Supervised Release (D.E. 33). 
Bully submitted multiple applications for COVID-relief loans that included material 
misrepresentations about his business activities. These applications sought $1,394,427 in 
loans, and Bully received $503,335 in proceeds of the fraud. He spent the proceeds on 
personal expenses. D.E. 17. 
On September 19, 2023, Bully pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 
U.S.C. § 1343. D.E. 16. 
When interviewed by the Probation Officer, Bully reported owning $75,000 in 
designer clothing, sneakers, and art. He represented that he would sell these items to pay 
restitution. D.E. 25 ¶¶ 82, 84. 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 35   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2026   Page 1 of 5

2 
 
On December 7, 2023, the Court sentenced Bully to 24 months’ incarceration, two 
years’ supervised release, and $503,235 in restitution. D.E. 29. 
On February 27, 2026, Bully moved to terminate his supervised release, relying on his 
community service, faith, education, and work.* 
On March 11, 2026, the undersigned spoke to Bully’s probation officer, who stated 
as follows. Bully began serving supervised release on January 15, 2025, and is scheduled to 
terminate supervised release on January 14, 2027. He works full time and he has not had any 
violations of conditions of supervised release. He has paid approximately $2400 in 
restitution; he still owes approximately $500,800. The Probation Office opposes early 
termination of supervised release because of Bully’s large restitution balance. 
A district court may terminate a term of supervised release after the completion of 
one year of the term if, after considering specified factors set forth in Title 18, United States 
Code, Section 3553(a), the court determines such action is both warranted by the 
 
* In his motion, defense counsel states that he “made numerous attempts to obtain 
the position of the United States [A]ttorney and has received no response to both emails and 
phone calls, thus the position of the United States is unknown.” D.E. 33 at 4. The AUSA 
originally assigned to this case, Shannon Shaw, has left the office. The undersigned filed a 
notice of appearance on November 3, 2023, and represented the government at sentencing. 
No other government attorney has filed a notice of appearance since the undersigned. The 
undersigned has not received any emails or voice messages from defense counsel about 
this case, although the undersigned spoke to defense counsel by telephone about an 
unrelated case on December 16, 2025. 
The government does not seek to criticize defense counsel. We do not doubt that he 
attempted in good faith to obtain the government’s position about this motion. The purpose 
of this footnote is only that the Court not think that the AUSA assigned to the case failed to 
respond to communications from defense counsel. 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 35   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2026   Page 2 of 5

3 
 
defendant’s conduct and is in the interests of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); United 
States v. McClamma, 548 F. App’x 598, 599 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). 
To the best of the government’s knowledge, Bully has fully complied with the terms 
of his supervised release. However, early termination is justified only occasionally, where 
the defendant establishes that “something exceptional or extraordinary warrants it.” United 
States v. Laine, 404 F. App’x 571, 573–74 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Therefore, 
compliance with the terms of supervised release is not in itself a basis for early termination. 
See United States v. Weintraub, 371 F. Supp. 2d 164, 166-67 (D. Conn. 2005) (“model prison 
conduct and full compliance with the terms of supervised release is what is expected of 
defendant and all others serving terms of imprisonment and supervised release and does 
not warrant early termination.” (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted)); 
United States v. McKay, 352 F. Supp.2d 359, 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“Model prison conduct and 
full compliance with the terms of supervised release is what is expected of a person under 
the magnifying glass of supervised release and does not warrant early termination.”); United 
States v. West, No. 5:00-CR-23(HL), 2011 WL 1458723, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 15, 2011) 
(“[W]hile [the defendant’s] conduct is certainly laudable, it is not exceptional to the extent 
that it warrants terminating the remainder of his supervised release. After all, being a 
productive member of society and exhibiting good behavior is what is expected of every 
individual, especially those who have been convicted of a criminal offense and are currently 
serving a term of supervised release.”); United States v. Robinson, No. 3:88-CR-215-J-12, 
2010 WL 716496, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2010) (“The Court expects such laudable efforts 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 35   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2026   Page 3 of 5

4 
 
of all defendants on supervision as part of their re-entry into the community after serving a 
lengthy sentence for the commission of serious offenses.”); United States v. Reisner, No. 
4:06-CR-077-SPM, 2008 WL 3896010, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2008); United States v. 
McClain, 2009 WL 854107 (E.D. Wis., Mar. 30, 2009) (“[C]ourts have consistently declined 
to grant [early termination] just because the defendant has complied with his conditions.”).† 
Because Bully’s motion is not supported by any exceptional circumstances, it should 
be denied. In addition, the government agrees with the Probation Department that Bully 
should remain on supervised release to facilitate the collection of restitution. Bully did not 
obtain “free” money in this case. He stole more than half a million dollars from the 
taxpayers, money that otherwise could have been loaned to true victims of the pandemic. 
Furthermore, Bully was not a “nominee” business owner who assisted a more culpable 
conspirator to steal money in return for a small fee. Rather, Bully himself dissipated the 
proceeds of the fraud on personal expenses. D.E. 17 at 3, 4. Apparently, these expenses 
included designer clothing, sneakers, and art. D.E. 25 ¶¶ 82, 84. Before sentencing, Bully 
expressed good intentions to make a large restitution payment, but in fact he has repaid only 
a small amount. Bully should serve his full term of supervised release so that his Probation 
Officer can ensure that he complies with his payment obligations through January 2027. 
 
† In his motion, Bully relies on the Guide to Judiciary Policy to suggest that there is a 
presumption in favor of recommending termination of supervised release after 12 months if 
the defendant was not convicted of certain types of crimes and has not committed serious 
violations of his conditions of release. D.E. 33 at 4. The undersigned is not familiar with this 
document and it does not appear to be available online. No such presumption is reflected 
in the caselaw. 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 35   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2026   Page 4 of 5

5 
 
WHEREFORE, the government respectfully opposes Bully’s motion to terminate his 
supervised release. 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
JASON A. REDING QUIÑONES 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
By: s/ Marc Osborne 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Court ID# A5500796 
500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Tel: (561) 209-1014 
marc.osborne@usdoj.gov 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 35   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2026   Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.652569.35.0.pdf

Size

74,485 bytes

SHA-256

cbfb60dbde396cb5f183d4ac3d2bb7af3e5209156066b3195fa517f2690d5b9b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.652569.35.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)