Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10497/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10497-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jared H. Woody
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10497

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JARED H. WOODY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00017-JRH-CLR-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-10497 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 11/26/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10497

Before BRANCH, ANDERSON, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Jared Woody, proceeding pro se, appeals the 

district court’s order denying his second motion for early 

termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). 

Woody argues that the district court abused its discretion by 

denying his second motion for termination of his supervised 

release because it weighed too heavily his original crime’s severity, 

failed to consider adequately his rehabilitation, and did not 

sufficiently explain its reasoning for denying early termination 

under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Having reviewed the record 

and read the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s order.

I.

We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial 

of a motion for early termination of supervised release. United 

States v. Cordero, 7 F.4th 1058, 1071 (11th Cir. 2021). “A district 

court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, 

follows improper procedures in making the determination,” or 

makes clearly erroneous factual findings. United States v. Harris, 989 

F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted). A court 

also abuses its discretion when it fails to explain its sentencing 

decisions adequately enough for meaningful appellate review. 

United States v. Johnson, 877 F.3d 993, 997 (11th Cir. 2017). Because 

this standard is deferential, we will affirm reasonable district court 

USCA11 Case: 24-10497 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 11/26/2024 Page: 2 of 5
24-10497 Opinion of the Court 3

decisions even if we would have decided to the contrary. United 

States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015).

II.

A district court overseeing supervised release may terminate 

that term of supervised release after at least one year, upon 

consideration of certain factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

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

defendant released and the interest of justice.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e)(1). The specified § 3553(a) factors must be considered. 

Johnson, 877 F.3d at 997. Notably, the statute permitting early 

termination leaves out two of the § 3553(a) factors from the list of 

factors that a court must consider: (1) “the need for the sentence 

imposed . . . to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote 

respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the 

offense,” which is under § 3553(a)(2)(A); and (2) “the kinds of 

sentences available,” which is under § 3553(a)(3). 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(1).

A district court denying early termination must explain the 

decision sufficiently to allow for meaningful appellate review. 

Johnson, 877 F.3d at 994-95; see also United States v. Stevens, 997 F.3d 

1307, 1317 (11th Cir. 2021) (reviewing the denial of a motion for

reduction of a sentence under the First Step Act). This means that 

the explanation must be enough for us to determine if the district 

court abused its discretion. Stevens, 997 F.3d at 1317. Affirming a 

district court’s decision where its order does not allow for 

USCA11 Case: 24-10497 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 11/26/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 24-10497

meaningful appellate review “would promote post hoc 

rationalization of sentencing decisions.” Johnson, 877 F.3d at 1000.

To that end, “a court must demonstrate that it has 

considered the § 3553(a) factors.” Id. at 997. A district court “is not 

required to articulate the applicability of each factor, as long as the 

record demonstrates that the pertinent factors were taken into 

account.” United States v. Douglas, 576 F.3d 1216, 1219 (11th Cir. 

2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (holding in an 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) case); Johnson, 877 F.3d at 994-95 (holding the necessity 

for meaningful appellate review of early termination decisions 

“mirrors our 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) precedent on the matter”). We 

have held that in fashioning an original sentence, “an 

acknowledgment by the district judge that he or she has considered 

the § 3553(a) factors will suffice.” United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 

1265, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007).

In addition, the district court “must make clear that [it] had 

a reasoned basis for choosing” to deny the motion. Stevens, 

997 F.3d at 1317 (quoting Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S.

109, 116-17, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1966 (2018)) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). For instance, it is not sufficient merely to refer to past 

orders when circumstances have changed, and the defendant raises 

new arguments. Id.

III.

The record demonstrates that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion when it denied Woody’s second motion for 

termination of his supervised release. The district court explained 

USCA11 Case: 24-10497 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 11/26/2024 Page: 4 of 5
24-10497 Opinion of the Court 5

in its written order denying the motion that the nature of Woody’s 

offense, possession of child pornography, outweighed other 

relevant factors such as his rehabilitation, although the district 

court expressly noted that Woody had performed well on 

supervised release. Further, the court did not improperly consider 

or weigh too heavily the nature of Woody’s offense because this 

was a relevant factor. Also, the court’s explanation in its order was 

sufficient to provide for meaningful appellate review and 

demonstrated consideration of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors. Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, we 

affirm the district court’s order.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 24-10497 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 11/26/2024 Page: 5 of 5