1

edmUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 06-20465 

v. Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds 

FRANK CHRISTOPHER, D-54, 

 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE [3120] 

In June of 2011, Defendant Frank Christopher was found guilty of conspiring with 

others to possess and distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. (ECF No. 2052.) 

The following October, this Court sentenced Defendant to a 120-month term of 

imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release. (ECF No. 2233.) 

Defendant was released from prison and began his term of supervised release 

approximately one-and-a-half years ago. He now moves for early termination of 

supervised release. (ECF No. 3120.) He provides no basis for his motion besides stating 

that he has been on supervised release since July 10, 2020. (Id.) 

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 interest of justice.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(1). Additional factors to consider 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), though the 

Court need not “recite any ‘magic words’ explaining whether and how” it weighed those 

Case 2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM ECF No. 3125, PageID.25254 Filed 02/06/22 Page 1 of 3
2

factors or considered relevant policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. 

Suber, 75 F. App'x 442, 444 (6th Cir. 2003). “Early termination of supervised release is a 

discretionary decision that 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)). But, “[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 the present circumstances do not warrant early termination 

of Defendant’s supervised release. Supervised release serves an important role toward 

rehabilitating persons discharged from prison and assisting their reintegration into society. 

See United States v. Neal, 810 F.3d 512, 519 (7th Cir. 2016); United States v. Johnson,

529 U.S. 53, 59 (2000); United States v. Sullivan, 504 F.3d 969, 972 (9th Cir.2007); United 

States v. Armendariz, 451 F.3d 352, 361 (5th Cir.2006). This Court sentenced Defendant 

to a 60-month term of supervised release, a term that remains appropriate today. 

Accordingly, and in consideration of the relevant sentencing factors, Defendant’s 

motion for early termination of supervised release is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

 Nancy G. Edmunds 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: February 6, 2022 

Case 2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM ECF No. 3125, PageID.25255 Filed 02/06/22 Page 2 of 3
3

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

on February 6, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Lisa Bartlett 

 Case Manager 

Case 2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM ECF No. 3125, PageID.25256 Filed 02/06/22 Page 3 of 3