Order Denying Defendant's Pro Se Motion for Early Termination of Probation — Cameron P. Henderson — United States v. Renetta Golden-Larimore, et al. (W.D. Mo.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri · No. 4:23-cr-00098-BCW · Doc. 416 · 2026-06-02 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
WESTERN DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v.  
 
CAMERON P. HENDERSON, 
 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
 
Case No. 4:23-CR-00098-BCW-4 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
Before the Court is Defendant’s pro se motion for early termination of probation. (Doc. 
#412). The Court, being duly advised of the premises, denies said motion. 
On June 27, 2024, Defendant was sentenced to a probation term of 3 years on one count of 
Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. (Doc. #309). Defendant began his probation term on 
June 27, 2024, and it is scheduled to expire on June 26, 2027. (Doc. #413). 
On March 16, 2026, Defendant filed the instant motion for early termination of probation. 
(Doc. #412). Defendant argues that early termination is warranted based on his compliance with 
all probation requirements, his service as a referee and role model for young students, and his work 
as a youth behavioral specialist, where he speaks to residents about discipline and remaining 
drug-free. Defendant also notes that, despite his mental-health issues, he has continued to “face 
the challenges with honesty and perseverance.” Id. 
On March 27, 2026, the United States Probation Office (“Probation”) filed a memorandum 
opposing Defendant’s request for early termination of probation. (Doc. #413). Probation reports 
that Defendant engaged in a scheme to submit false and fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program 
(“PPP”) loan applications, including false statements about his income and a business he did not 
own, resulting in more than $220,000 in improperly issued funds. In light of these circumstances, 
Case 4:23-cr-00098-BCW     Document 416     Filed 06/02/26     Page 1 of 2

2 
 
and after considering the totality of the case, Probation does not support the Defendant’s request 
for early termination. Probation further notes that continued supervision allows monitoring of 
Defendant’s financial compliance, including his remaining restitution balance of $10,349.72, and 
that although he has made progress in reintegration, he has already been afforded reduced-risk 
supervision in recognition of his compliance. 
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), the Court may, after considering the factors set forth 
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, “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 the Court is 
satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of 
justice.”  
Having reviewed the record, the Court finds early termination of probation is not warranted 
at this time based on Defendant’s conduct and the factors articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. 
Specifically, the Court believes that additional time is necessary to monitor Defendant’s financial 
status and to deter any future financial damage. Continued supervision will also support 
Defendant’s rehabilitation by ensuring he receives ongoing assistance from Probation. 
Accordingly, it is hereby  
ORDERED Defendant’s pro se motion for early termination of probation (Doc. #412) is 
DENIED. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 2, 2026 
/s/ Brian C. Wimes 
 
 
BRIAN C. WIMES, CHIEF JUDGE 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
Case 4:23-cr-00098-BCW     Document 416     Filed 06/02/26     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mowd.169316.416.0.pdf

Size

104,069 bytes

SHA-256

a285aba90442bf9460b277e24c076f0521aef93d3cbc704d02056a982fd81d6a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mowd.169316.416.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)