Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release — United States v. David Tyler Hines (S.D. Fla.)

Summary

Document 76 in United States v. David Tyler Hines, Case No. 21-CR-20011-DPG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered May 14, 2026, is the defendant's motion for early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) and U.S.S.G. § 5D1.4(b). The motion states that Hines pled guilty in 2021 to one count of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and was ordered to pay $4,809,057 in restitution, with a forfeiture order of $3,984,557. It says he has completed over one year of supervision without a violation, is current on restitution payments of $287.00 per month, and that the Probation Office does not oppose while the Government opposes. The motion argues each factor in the new policy statement supports termination, that termination does not affect restitution, and that denial would create a disparity with a coconspirator charged in a separate case.

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

Case 1:21-cr-20011-DPG Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2026 Page 1 of 9




                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                            Case No. 21-CR-20011-DPG

  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
       Plaintiff,

  v.

  DAVID TYLER HINES,
        Defendant.
  __________________________________/

              DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION
                       OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

        Defendant David Tyler Hines, through undersigned counsel, respectfully

  moves this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) and U.S.S.G. § 5D1.4(b) to

  terminate the remaining term of his supervised release. Mr. Hines has completed

  over one year of supervision without a violation. He is employed full-time as a

  marketing data analyst, supports his wife and two young children, and is current

  on his court-ordered restitution payments. The United States Probation Office

  does not oppose this motion. The Government opposes it.

  I.    BACKGROUND

        Mr. Hines pled guilty in 2021 to one count of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343,

  arising from fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program applications submitted

  during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court imposed a

  custodial sentence followed by three years of supervised release, a Preliminary

  Order of Forfeiture in the amount of $3,984,557, and a Restitution Order in the

  amount of $4,809,057. Approximately $3.7 million was seized from Mr. Hines'

  bank accounts and applied in its entirety to the forfeiture judgment. None of the


                                         1
Case 1:21-cr-20011-DPG Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2026 Page 2 of 9




  seized funds was credited against restitution. Mr. Hines is on a court-ordered

  restitution payment plan of $287.00 per month and has not missed a payment.

  Mr. Hines began his supervised-release term in April 2025; the scheduled

  termination date is April 2028.

  II.   LEGAL STANDARD

        After one year of supervised release, the Court may terminate the balance

  of the term "if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the

  defendant released and the interest of justice," after considering the applicable

  factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).

        Effective November 1, 2025, the United States Sentencing Commission

  promulgated a new policy statement directly addressing early termination of

  supervised release. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.4(b) (Policy Statement); U.S.S.G. App. C,

  Amend. 835 (Nov. 1, 2025). Section 5D1.4(b) provides:

        Any 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.

  U.S.S.G. § 5D1.4(b). Application Note 1(B) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of

  factors the court "may wish to consider" when determining whether to terminate:

        (i) any history of court-reported violations over the term of
        supervision; (ii) the ability of the defendant to lawfully self-manage
        (e.g., the ability to problem-solve and avoid situations that may
        result in a violation of a condition of supervised release or new
        criminal charges); (iii) the defendant's substantial compliance with
        all conditions of supervision; (iv) the defendant's engagement in
        appropriate prosocial activities and the existence or lack of prosocial
        support to remain lawful beyond the period of supervision; (v) a


                                          2
Case 1:21-cr-20011-DPG Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2026 Page 3 of 9




         demonstrated reduction in risk level or maintenance of the lowest
         category of risk over the 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.

  U.S.S.G. § 5D1.4 cmt. n.1(B). The Commission adopted § 5D1.4(b) specifically to

  "encourage appropriate use of early termination" and to "help ensure that

  resources are allocated to the individuals most in need of continued supervision

  and that the term is 'sufficient, but not greater than necessary' to fulfill the

  purposes of imposing supervision." U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 835, Reason for

  Amendment.

  III.   ARGUMENT

         A.    Mr. Hines' Conduct Since 2020 Demonstrates Sustained
               Rehabilitation

         Since his arrest in July 2020, Mr. Hines has had no new criminal conduct

  of any kind, and his compliance record at every stage of this case has been

  complete.

         During his term of imprisonment, Mr. Hines did not receive a single

  incident report. He completed more than a dozen educational and rehabilitative

  programs, completed every drug treatment program made available to him, and

  passed every urinalysis administered while in custody. He successfully

  completed his halfway house placement and the period of electronic monitoring

  that followed. He has now completed more than one year of supervised release,

  again without any violation, and has remained fully compliant with all reporting



                                          3
Case 1:21-cr-20011-DPG Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2026 Page 4 of 9




  requirements, drug testing, and restitution payments. He works full-time as a

  marketing data analyst for a moving company. He lives with his wife and their

  two young children, and the family depends on his continued stability.

        The substance use issues that contributed to the offense conduct are no

  longer present in Mr. Hines' life. He has remained sober throughout his custody,

  his halfway house placement, and his supervised release — nearly six years in

  total. The rehabilitative goals reflected in the Court's special conditions of

  supervision — substance abuse treatment, financial disclosure, restrictions on

  new debt, restrictions on self-employment — have been met. The Probation

  Office, which has had direct and continuous contact with Mr. Hines, does not

  oppose early termination.

        B.    Mr. Hines Satisfies Each of the Factors Identified in U.S.S.G. §
              5D1.4 cmt. n.1(B).

        Each of the six factors identified by the Sentencing Commission supports

  termination.

              1.    Court-reported violations (factor (i)).

        There are none. Mr. Hines has incurred no violations of supervised release

  of any kind. He likewise received no incident reports during his term of

  imprisonment.

              2.    Ability to lawfully self-manage (factor (ii)).

        Mr. Hines has demonstrated this ability across every stage of post-arrest

  supervision. He complied with pretrial release conditions in the months leading

  to his sentencing, completed his BOP sentence without incident, completed the

  structured transition through halfway house placement and electronic


                                         4
Case 1:21-cr-20011-DPG Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2026 Page 5 of 9




  monitoring, and has now completed more than a year of unstructured supervised

  release without any reported difficulty. He maintains lawful, full-time

  employment; he manages a household; he has built routines that avoid the

  situations and influences that previously produced the offense conduct.

        3.     Substantial compliance with conditions (factor (iii)).

        Mr. Hines is in complete compliance with every condition of supervision:

  reporting, drug testing, restitution payments, financial disclosure, debt

  restrictions, self-employment restrictions, and substance-abuse treatment. The

  Probation Office's non-opposition reflects that compliance.

        4.     Engagement in prosocial activities and prosocial support
               (factor (iv)).

        Mr. Hines is a husband and a father of two young children. He works full-

  time at a moving company in a structured, lawful role. His family life and his

  employment are the primary sources of stability in his life today — exactly the

  prosocial supports the Sentencing Commission identified as relevant. Those

  supports are durable; they will continue beyond the period of supervision and

  are the structure of his daily life rather than artifacts of court supervision.

        5.     Reduction in risk level or maintenance of low risk (factor (v)).

        The substance use disorder that drove the offense conduct has been in

  sustained remission for nearly six years. Mr. Hines completed every drug

  treatment program available to him in BOP and has continued to comply with

  treatment-related   conditions    on   supervised    release.   Continuous    lawful

  employment, household stability, and an unbroken record of compliance are

  themselves indicia of low and reducing risk.


                                           5
Case 1:21-cr-20011-DPG Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2026 Page 6 of 9




        6.    Whether termination will jeopardize public safety (factor (vi)).

        It will not. The offense was a non-violent financial fraud, and there is no

  indication — in his record while incarcerated, his halfway house placement, his

  electronic monitoring period, or his supervised release — of any inclination

  toward further criminal conduct. Mr. Hines has affirmatively reintegrated into

  the community: lawful employment, stable housing, family responsibilities,

  sobriety. The victims of the offense, financial institutions, remain fully protected

  because termination of supervision does not affect the restitution judgment, the

  Government’s lien, or the Government’s ability to enforce collection.

        Taken together, these factors describe precisely the case in which the

  Sentencing Commission envisioned early termination being granted: a defendant

  who has done the work of supervision, who has internalized its rehabilitative

  purposes, and for whom continued supervision serves no remaining function

  that termination would defeat.

        C.    Early Termination Does not Affect Restitution

        The concern raised by the Government — the outstanding restitution

  balance — does not justify continued supervision. Termination of supervised

  release would not alter the restitution judgment, reduce the amount owed,

  extinguish the lien, modify the payment obligation, or impair the Government’s

  collection authority. See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b), (f). Mr. Hines will remain obligated

  to pay restitution whether supervision ends now or in April 2028. Continued

  supervision therefore adds nothing to the victims’ ability to recover.




                                           6
Case 1:21-cr-20011-DPG Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2026 Page 7 of 9




        Moreover, the Government’s restitution concern should not be confused

  with any suggestion that Mr. Hines retained millions of dollars in unrecovered

  proceeds. He did not. Out of the $3,984,557 he obtained, the Government was

  able to seize approximately $3.7 million from him. Those funds were not credited

  against restitution, but they were recovered by the Government. The vehicle

  seizure further underscores the point: although the Government valued the

  vehicle at approximately $220,000, Mr. Hines had paid approximately $318,000

  for it shortly before his arrest. The precise valuation does not change the

  restitution judgment, and Mr. Hines does not ask the Court to recalculate it. The

  point is narrower: early termination will not permit Mr. Hines to retain a hidden

  windfall or avoid repayment. The restitution order, lien, payment obligation, and

  collection remedies remain fully intact regardless of whether supervision

  continues.

        D.     Denying Termination Would Produce an Unwarranted Disparity
               with Mr. Hines' Coconspirator.

        Section 3553(a)(6) directs the Court to consider "the need to avoid

  unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who

  have been found guilty of similar conduct." That factor is directly implicated here.

  Mr. Hines' coconspirator, Ioannis Kralievits, was charged in Case No. 21-CR-

  20157-Altonaga with conspiracy to commit wire fraud arising from the same

  scheme. Kralievits later moved for early termination of his supervised release.

  The Government did not oppose. The motion was granted.

        The Government's objection here turns primarily on Mr. Hines'

  outstanding restitution balance, but the comparison to Kralievits underscores


                                           7
Case 1:21-cr-20011-DPG Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2026 Page 8 of 9




  why that objection should not control. Kralievits was ordered to pay $453,623 in

  restitution — a figure calculated by reducing the loss amount attributable to him

  by the $371,126 recovered from his bank accounts. Because the Government

  did not separately pursue forfeiture against Kralievits, the seized funds were

  credited directly against his restitution at the front end. A subsequent

  administrative crediting issue resulted in the same seized amount being applied

  a second time against his already-reduced balance. Kralievits then paid off the

  balance and the Government raised no objection to his early termination.

        Mr. Hines' situation went the other way at sentencing. He was ordered to

  pay $4,809,057, a figure that included the loan amount attributable to Kralievits,

  and the approximately $3.7 million seized from his accounts was applied entirely

  to forfeiture rather than restitution. The disparity between the two defendants'

  remaining balances therefore reflects how the seized funds were allocated at

  sentencing, not any difference in their respective conduct on supervision. Mr.

  Hines does not ask the Court to revisit that allocation. He asks only that the

  same restitution-balance concern that the Government did not raise against

  Kralievits not be deployed against him.

  IV.   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Hines has done what this Court asked of him. He has served his

  custodial sentence without incident, completed every program offered to him,

  transitioned successfully through halfway house placement and electronic

  monitoring, and built a stable, lawful life around work, family, and sobriety. Each

  of the factors the Sentencing Commission has identified for early-termination



                                            8
Case 1:21-cr-20011-DPG Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2026 Page 9 of 9




  analysis under U.S.S.G. § 5D1.4(b) is met. The Probation Office does not oppose.

  His coconspirator was released from supervision without objection under

  materially similar — and in important respects more favorable — circumstances.

  Mr. Hines respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and terminate

  his term of supervised release.

                          CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL

        Pursuant to Local Rule 88.0, undersigned counsel conferred with AUSA

  Michael Berger regarding the relief sought in this motion.     The Government

  opposes.

                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I hereby certify that on May 14, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing

  with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will serve notice

  on all counsel of record.

                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                             /s/Erick Cruz
                                             Erick Cruz
                                             Florida Bar #43628
                                             Attorney for Defendant
                                             2420 Coral Way
                                             Miami, FL 33145
                                             305-444-3844
                                             Cruz@ErickCruzLaw.com




                                         9


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.584464.76.0.pdf

Size

158,038 bytes

SHA-256

b8f5133b204dbc4fc6378dcba53eeb09b9b351dc28da840c5b7b60f354ca8001

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.584464.76.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)