Opinion, Application for Early Termination of Supervised Release — United States v. Terry (Document 10)

Summary

An Opinion filed June 10, 2026 as Document 10 in United States v. James Terry, Criminal Action No. 24-381 (JXN), in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, by District Judge Neals. It addresses Defendant James Terry's application for early termination of supervised release, which the Government opposed, and denies it without prejudice to Defendant's ability to refile. The Opinion states that Defendant pled guilty on July 11, 2019, in the Southern District of West Virginia to one count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and was sentenced to ninety-two months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. The Court concludes that early termination is unwarranted at this time.

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 2:24-cr-00381-JXN                Document 10        Filed 06/10/26    Page 1 of 5 PageID: 43




                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                     DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                                   Criminal Action No. 24-381 (JXN)
                             Plaintiff,

            v.                                                                OPINION
    JAMES TERRY,

                             Defendant.


NEALS, District Judge

           Before the Court is Defendant James Terry’s (“Defendant”) application for early

termination of supervised release. (ECF No. 4.) The United States of America (“Government”)

opposed the request. 1 (ECF No. 9.) The Court has carefully considered the parties’ submissions

and decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1, which is

applicable to criminal cases under Local Criminal Rule 1.1. For the reasons set forth below,

Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

I.         BACKGROUND

           On July 11, 2019, Defendant pled guilty in the Southern District of West Virginia to one

count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. (Crim. J.,

ECF No. 2-2; see also United States v. Terry, No. 18-200, (S.D. W.Va., July 11, 2019), ECF No.

164). Defendant was sentenced to ninety-two months in prison, followed by three years of

supervised release. (Crim. J. at 2–3.) Defendant’s supervised release began on April 5, 2024, and

will end on April 4, 2027. (Transfer of Jurisdiction, ECF No. 1.) On June 10, 2024, the jurisdiction




1
    The Probation Office did not oppose Defendant’s application.
    Case 2:24-cr-00381-JXN             Document 10            Filed 06/10/26        Page 2 of 5 PageID: 44




for Defendant’s supervised release was transferred from the Southern District of West Virginia to

this District. (Id.)

         On January 14, 2026, Defendant moved for early termination of his supervised release.

(Mot., ECF No. 4.) Defendant explains that while in custody at a halfway house, he obtained his

forklift license, found and continues to maintain gainful employment at a perfume factory, and that

his “life has changed for the better” since his release. (Id. at *1–2. 2) Moreover, as expressed in his

letter to the Court, Defendant intended on starting school to receive his commercial driver’s license

in January 2026. (Id. at *2.)

         The Government opposed Defendant’s motion, arguing that Defendant did not meet his

burden to show that early termination is warranted under the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a) factors support denying Defendant’s request. 3 (Gov’t Opp’n at 2, ECF No. 9.) Further, the

Government notes that, according to the Probation Office, Defendant violated the terms of his

supervised release by testing positive for marijuana on four separate occasions during the first six

months of his supervised release. (Id. at 5 n.3.)

II.      LEGAL STANDARD

         The Court has broad discretion to terminate supervised release early. See United States v.

Melvin, 978 F.3d 49, 52 (3d Cir. 2020). The Court, likewise, has “broad discretion to consider all

relevant information” in ruling on an early termination motion. Concepcion v. United States, 597

U.S. 481, 491 (2022).

         Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the Court may terminate a term of supervised release if, after

reviewing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), “it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the


2
  Pincites preceded by an asterisk (*) use ECF pagination.
3
 As support for its opposition, the Government cites the seriousness of Defendant’s underlying offense, his supervised
release term of three years being the statutory minimum, and Defendant’s lengthy criminal history. (Gov’t Opp’n at
2.)

                                                          2
 Case 2:24-cr-00381-JXN          Document 10         Filed 06/10/26    Page 3 of 5 PageID: 45




conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.” The 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors the

Court must consider are:

       (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the defendant's history and
       characteristics; (2) the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,
       protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and provide him with
       needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional
       treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds of sentence and sentencing
       range established for the defendant's crimes; (4) pertinent policy statements issued
       by the United States Sentencing Commission; (5) the need to avoid unwarranted
       sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found
       guilty of similar conduct; and (6) the need to provide restitution to any victims of
       the offense.

Melvin, 978 F.3d at 52 (quoting United States v. Davies, 746 F. App'x 86, 88–89 (3d Cir. 2018)).

The Court need not “make specific findings of fact with respect to each of these factors.” Id. at

52–53. Rather, a statement that the Court has considered the factors is sufficient. Id. at 53. The

Court need not find an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance to grant early termination. See

id. Nor is it a requirement that the defendant present a new or unforeseen occurrence that arose

since the original sentencing. Id. “In other words, extraordinary circumstances may be sufficient

to justify early termination of a term of supervised release, but they are not necessary for such

termination.” Id. (emphasis in original).

       Nevertheless, because the imposition of an original sentence should be “sufficient, but not

greater than necessary” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), courts generally “expect that something will have

changed in the interim that would justify an early end to a term of supervised release,” Melvin, 978

F.3d at 53. Conversely, a defendant's routine compliance with the terms of supervision, although

“commendable, . . . is precisely what is expected of [a defendant].” United States v. Stiso, No. 14-

484, 2021 WL 1291648, at *3 (D.N.J. Apr. 6, 2021).




                                                 3
 Case 2:24-cr-00381-JXN          Document 10         Filed 06/10/26     Page 4 of 5 PageID: 46




III.   DISCUSSION

       Having reviewed § 3553(a) factors, the Court concludes that early termination of

Defendant’s supervised release is unwarranted at this time.

       First, the § 3553(a) factors counsel against early termination. The nature and circumstances

of Defendant’s offense are serious and he has an extensive criminal history. Following a search of

Defendant’s vehicle, Defendant was arrested with 997 oxycodone pills and marijuana. (Gov’t

Opp’n at 1.) Government-intercepted phone calls involving members of a drug trafficking

organization in West Virginia, as well as a post-arrest statement from a member of that

organization, established that Defendant was interested in, and may have received, a firearm from

the organization in exchange for drugs. (Id. at 1–2.) Moreover, Defendant’s criminal history score

is 16, resulting from his prior adult convictions for assault, unlawful possession of a firearm,

resisting arrest, distribution of a controlled substance on school property, prowling to obtain a

controlled substance, and disorderly conduct. (Id. at 4–5.)

       Second, § 3583(e) explains that the Court “may provide relief only if it is satisfied that

early termination is warranted by the defendant's conduct and is in the interest of justice.” Melvin,

978 F.3d at 52 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1)). Here, Defendant points to his post-release conduct,

his gainful employment and interest in pursuing a commercial driver’s license as support for early

termination. (See Mot.) While the Court commends Defendant for complying with the terms of his

supervised release, compliance does not, on its own, warrant early termination. Stiso, 2021 WL

1291648, at *3. Further, Defendant does not claim that his supervised release prevents him from

obtaining a commercial driver’s license nor does he identify other unforeseen occurrences or

changed circumstances warranting early termination. See United States v. Fried, No. 24-501, 2025

WL 3043511, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2025).



                                                 4
 Case 2:24-cr-00381-JXN           Document 10       Filed 06/10/26     Page 5 of 5 PageID: 47




       The Court, therefore, concludes that Defendant’s conduct and the interest of justice do not

warrant early termination at this time. Nonetheless, Defendant’s efforts to improve his life do not

go unnoticed. If Defendant encounters a change in his circumstances, the Court encourages him to

refile his application for early termination.

IV.    CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for early termination of supervised release

(ECF No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice to Defendant’s ability to refile. An appropriate Order

accompanies this Opinion.




DATED: 6/10/2026                                     _______________________
                                                     JULIEN XAVIER NEALS
                                                     United States District Judge




                                                5


File and source

File

10.pdf

Size

201,888 bytes

SHA-256

a647ed25c297f0d31ddd7d4440802c376740929aefaf20064c22cab0998a9667

Our copy

10.pdf

Original

No public link identified.