1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-20383 

v. Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds 

RAYMOND L. THOMAS, JR., 

 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE [29] 

On July 8, 2015, Defendant Raymond L. Thomas, Jr. pled guilty to one count of 

conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, a 

controlled substance. (ECF No. 143.) On October 27, 2015, this Court sentenced 

Defendant to 60 months imprisonment followed by a term of 48 months of supervised 

release. (ECF No. 163.) The matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion for early 

termination of supervised release. 

Defendant was placed on supervised release on May 1, 2020 and has served 

approximately 19 months of his 48-month term. Defendant argues that his term of 

supervised release should be terminated because he secured employment in, and 

desires to move to, Houston, Texas. He also notes that he has taken several steps 

towards successful rehabilitation and maintains good relationships with his children. 

 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), the Court may terminate a term of supervised 

release at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release if the Court “is 

satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the 

Case 2:14-cr-20383-NGE-RSW ECF No. 456, PageID.3714 Filed 01/28/22 Page 1 of 3
2

interest of justice.” Additional factors the Court considers are the sentencing factors in 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7). See

§ 3583(e). Early termination “is only warranted in cases where the defendant shows 

changed circumstances—such as exceptionally good behavior.” United States v. Atkin, 

38 F. App’x 196, 198 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32, 36 (2d 

Cir. 1997)). However, “[s]imple compliance with the conditions of supervised release are 

[sic] expected and not exceptional . . . .” United States v. Laine, 404 F. App’x 571, 574 

(3d Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Medina, 17 F. Supp. 2d 245, 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 

(noting that even though the defendant’s “post-incarceration conduct is apparently 

unblemished, this alone cannot be sufficient reason to terminate the supervised release 

since, it if it were, the exception would swallow the rule”). 

Here, the Court finds that there are no changed circumstances that warrant early 

termination of Defendant’s supervised release.1 The Court imposed a 48-month term of 

supervised release consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a). While the Court commends 

Defendant on his compliance with the terms of supervised release and efforts towards 

positive rehabilitation, this is not sufficient for early termination of Defendant’s supervised 

release under the circumstances. 

Based upon the foregoing, and having considered this matter in its entirety, 

Defendant’s motion for early termination of supervised release is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

 Nancy G. Edmunds 

Dated: January 28, 2022 United States District Judge 

1 The Court suggested, as an alternative course of action, that Defendant request his supervision be 

transferred to Houston, Texas. Defendant declined this option. 

Case 2:14-cr-20383-NGE-RSW ECF No. 456, PageID.3715 Filed 01/28/22 Page 2 of 3
3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

on January 28, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Lisa Bartlett 

 Case Manager 

Case 2:14-cr-20383-NGE-RSW ECF No. 456, PageID.3716 Filed 01/28/22 Page 3 of 3