ORDER

CR05-0182-JCC-2

PAGE - 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEITH LAMONT SIMS,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR05-0182-JCC-2

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for early termination of 

supervised release (Dkt. No. 305). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the 

relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for 

the reasons explained herein.

In 2005, Defendant pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Defraud the United States; he was 

later sentenced to 60 months of confinement and three years of supervised release. (Dkt. Nos. 30, 

182, 223.) Defendant now moves for early termination of his supervised release. (Dkt. No. 305.)

In support, he cites his recent compliance with the conditions of his supervised release, his age,

his stable employment, and a stable personal relationship. (Id. at 1–3.) The Government and the 

Probation Office oppose, citing Defendant’s poor performance on supervised release throughout 

much of the period since his initial release. (Dkt. No. 306 at 1.)

The Court may terminate a term of supervised release after the completion of one year “if 

Case 2:05-cr-00182-JCC Document 308 Filed 12/19/22 Page 1 of 2
ORDER

CR05-0182-JCC-2

PAGE - 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

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). In deciding whether early termination is appropriate, 

the Court must consider several factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, 

the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need to deter criminal conduct, the need to 

protect the public from further crimes, the need to provide the defendant with correctional 

treatment in the most effective manner, and the need to avoid disparity among similarly situated 

defendants. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (citing to factors listed by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)); United States v. 

Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 820 (9th Cir. 2014).

The Court has considered the § 3553(a) factors and concludes that early termination of 

supervised release is not warranted. Defendant’s criminal record prior to the crime for which he 

was sentenced is lengthy. (See Dkt. No. 157.) And his post-sentence conduct is equally 

concerning. Defendant has violated the conditions of his supervised released on numerous 

occasions. (See Dkt. Nos. 281, 296, 303.) In some instances, this included serious crimes

resulting in additional lengthy sentences. Maintaining Defendant’s supervised release period will 

ensure the safety of the community, at least within the limits of the Court’s statutory authority. 

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant’s conduct since his release does not warrant 

early termination and that, in consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, early termination 

is not in the interests of justice. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for early 

termination of supervised release (Dkt. No. 305) is DENIED.

DATED this 19th day of December 2022.

AJohn C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cr-00182-JCC Document 308 Filed 12/19/22 Page 2 of 2