Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0470-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. William T. TACKER, II, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-60229 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed January 6, 2017
    
      Robert J. Mims, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    David 0. Butts, Tupelo, MS, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

William T. Tacker, II, former federal prisoner # 12960-042, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for early termination of his supervised release. He asserts that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion, gave no indication that it considered his arguments that he met all the requirements and appropriate considerations set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583 and 3553, and instead focused on his outstanding restitution obligation. He contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion when another court granted his code-fendant’s less-deserving motion. Finally, he contends that the district court’s perceived practice of denying early termination to anyone who has a restitution obligation is inconsistent with the spirit of §§ 3583 and 3553 and a 2012 memorandum by Judge Robert Holmes Bell to all federal district courts encouraging early termination of supervised release.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tacker’s motion. Although the district court indicated that Tacker’s restitution obligation was substantial, the record does not reflect that the district court based its decision solely on Tacker’s restitution obligation. The district court considered all of Tacker’s arguments, but concluded that early termination of his supervised release term was not warranted under the circumstances. Further, Tacker has not shown that the district court has a policy of denying such motions in all cases in which the defendant has an outstanding restitution obligation. In view of the district court’s broad discretion and the requirement that the court consider the factors as they apply to each individual case, Tacker has not shown that the district court abused its discretion. See United States v. Jeanes, 150 F.3d 483, 484-85 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.