[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 11193 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:11

- tp

- 60013

- JIC

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ROGER A. BROWNE, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (December 27, 2012)

Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Roger A. Browne, M.D., appeals pro se the denial of his motion to terminate his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). Browne a rgues that he should

Case: 12-11193 Date Filed: 12/27/2012 Page: 1 of 42 have been allowed to resume employment in the medical pr ofession and that the district court failed to provide a sufficient explanation for its decision. We affirm. We review the denial of a motion to modify supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cunningham , 607 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir . 2010). Under th e abuse of discretion s tandard, “ [w] e will reverse only if we have a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached.” United States v. Moran , 573 F.3d 1132, 1137 ( 1 1 t h Cir

. 2009) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). We review for plain error any argument not initially presented to the district court. United States v. Gresham , 325 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 2003). To satisfy that standard, the defendant must prove that there was an error that was plain, affected his substantial rights, and seriously affected the fairne ss of the judicial proceedings. Id. Browne was convicted of conspiring to distribute oxycodone an d served a
30

- month term of imprisonment . Brown e was released to serve three years of supervised release , during which time he was prohibited from engaging in the medical profession. After his release, Brown e failed to report to his probation officer wit hin 72 hours of his release, and it took offi cers four months to locate
him

. Although Brown e signed a form acknowledging the conditions of his release,

Case: 12-11193 Date Filed: 12/27/2012 Page: 2 of 43 he failed to comply with the standard condition t o obtain a job. Brown e moved to terminate his supervi sed release to resum e employment in the medical field. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Browne’s motion to terminate his supervised release. Section 3583(e)(1) permits a district court to “terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant” if, “after considering the [statutory] factors for sentencing,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court is “satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.” Id. § 3583(e)(1). Supervised release is intended to facilitate training and rehabilitation , Johnson v. United States , 529 U.S. 694, 709,
120 S. Ct. 1795 , 1805 (2000), and to achieve the statutory goals of sentencing to account for the nature and circumstance s of the offense, to deter future similar crimes, and to protect the public, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court reasonably determined, based on the statutory purposes of sentencing and Browne’s refusal to satisfy the standard terms of his supervised release, that his continued exclusion from the medical profession would shield Browne from the temptation to reoffend and p rotect the public from the dangers inherent in the distribution of controlled substances

. After Browne had twice violated the condit ions of his release, t he district court had ample reason to deny summarily his motion to terminate his supervised release.

Case: 12-11193 Date Filed: 12/27/2012 Page: 3 of 44 We AFFIRM t he denial of Brown e ’s motion to terminate his supervised release

. Case: 12-11193 Date Filed: 12/27/2012 Page: 4 of 4