IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No: 11-cr-00406-CMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

2. DANIEL SHAW,

Defendant.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF 

SUPERVISED RELEASE 

The United States Attorney, by and through Assistant United States Attorney 

Patricia Davies opposes the Defendant’s Corrected Motion for Early Termination of 

Supervised Release (Doc. #36) (“Motion”), filed in United States v. v. Daniel Shaw, 10-

cr-00488-CMA (“Shaw I”). The Motion seeks early termination of supervised release in 

both Shaw I and United States v. Danny Shaw, 11-cr-00406-CMA-2 (Shaw II).1

On January 28, 2020, Mr. Shaw filed his Motion for early termination. By order 

dated January 28, 2020, in Shaw I, the Court ordered the government to respond to the 

Motion. (Doc. #38). The government filed its response on February 4, 2020 (Doc. #40). 

The undersigned counsel has since learned that the Court also ordered the government 

to respond in Shaw II (Doc. #493); this response follows.

 1As noted in its prior response (Doc. #40), undersigned counsel was not involved in either of the two 

cases regarding Mr. Shaw, referenced below. Shaw II was prosecuted by an AUSA in the District of New 

Mexico, who was designated as a “Special Assistant United States Attorney” (“SAUSA”) for purposes of 

Shaw II. The undersigned AUSA has consulted with that prior SAUSA, who advises that he believes he is 

no longer a SAUSA in Colorado. The undersigned files this response to comply with the Court’s order 

(Doc. #493).

Case 1:11-cr-00406-CMA Document 494 Filed 02/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
I. Defendant’s Motion Does Not Meet the Standard for Early Termination of 

Supervision.

A. Background Regarding the Defendant’s Convictions and Supervision 

Term

Daniel Shaw has requested early termination of his four-year period of 

supervision, which supervision is based on concurrent terms of 3 and 4 years, with each 

supervision period imposed following his conviction for a violent crime. In United States 

v. Daniel Shaw, 10-cr-00488-CMA (“Shaw I”), the defendant was convicted following his 

guilty plea to committing armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 2113(a) 

and (d). Defendant was arrested in connection with Shaw I in September 2010, and 

housed for at least a portion of his pre-trial detention at the Federal Correctional 

Institution in Englewood, Colorado (“FCI-Englewood”). Mr. Shaw entered his guilty plea 

to a single armed bank robbery in November 2010. The plea agreement (Doc. #19, pg.

2) and the presentence investigation report (“PSR”) in Shaw I reflect that in addition to 

the armed bank robbery to which he pled guilty, Mr. Shaw committed two additional 

bank robberies in September 2010. On February 22, 2011, Mr. Shaw was sentenced to 

41 months’ imprisonment and a 4-year period of supervised release for the armed bank 

robbery in Shaw I. 

In United States v. Danny Shaw, 11-cr-00406-CMA-2 (Shaw II), Mr. Shaw was 

charged along with two co-defendants with committing sexual assault on January 22, 

2011 in a federal prison, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 7, 

2241(a)(1), 2246(2)(C), and 2. According to the PSR in Shaw II, defendant assisted in 

Case 1:11-cr-00406-CMA Document 494 Filed 02/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7
a violent sexual assault at FCI-Englewood, and was later found guilty by a jury.2 He 

was later sentenced to 54 months’ imprisonment, and 3 years of supervised release, 

with supervision from Shaw II to run concurrently with the supervision in Shaw I.

As of the time of filing his Corrected Motion for Early Termination of Supervised 

Release (Doc. #36), Mr. Shaw appears to have been supervised for slightly more than 

approximately 2 years and four months of his imposed 4-year term. (Id., at 2).

B. Standard for Early Termination of Supervision

Supervised release may be terminated early if a court, “after considering the 

factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), 

and (a)(7) . . . 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)3. Among those courts that 

have considered what showing a defendant must make concerning his conduct and the 

interests of justice for early termination of supervision, the majority rule appears to be 

that “mere compliance with the terms of probation or supervised release is what is 

expected of probationers, and without more, is insufficient to justify early termination.” 

United States v. Caruso, 241 F. Supp. 2d 466, 469 (D.N.J. 2003) (collecting cases); see 

also United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 824 n.2 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A defendant’s 

 2 The undersigned counsel has had some difficulty reconstructing the procedural posture in Shaw II. It 

appears that, following Mr. Shaw’s conviction by jury, he appealed and his conviction was affirmed by 

United States v. Shaw, 562 Fed. App’x. 593 (10th Cir. 2014). Nonetheless, Shaw II was later resolved by 

Mr. Shaw’s guilty plea to an Information, charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6) (Assault within the 

jurisdiction of the United States Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury) (Doc. # 478). 

3 Those factors are: (a)(1) nature and circumstances of the offense and history and characteristics of the 

defendant; (a)(2)(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (a)(2)(C) to protect the public from 

further crimes of the defendant; (a)(4) the kinds of sentences and the sentencing range established 

[under the Sentencing Guidelines]; (a)(5) any pertinent policy statement [under the Guidelines]; (a)(6) the 

need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been 

found guilty of similar conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

Case 1:11-cr-00406-CMA Document 494 Filed 02/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7
‘exceptionally good behavior’ may render a previously-imposed sentence inappropriate 

or too harsh, but as the district courts of our circuit have repeatedly recognized, mere 

compliance is to be expected.”); Karacsonyi v. United States, 152 F.3d 918 (Table), 

1998 WL 410273, *1 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Full compliance, after all, is merely what is 

expected of all people serving terms of supervised release.”).

Thus, courts generally have required a demonstration of new or “changed 

circumstances, such as exceptionally good behavior.” Caruso, 241 F. Supp. 2d at 468; 

but see United States v. Gainer, 936 F. Supp. 785, 786 (D. Kan. 1998) (granting early 

termination request without requiring demonstration of changed circumstances). 

Mr. Shaw’s Motion requesting early termination of his supervision recounts his 

growing business and his successful family relationships. (Doc. #36). The Motion also 

states that Mr. Shaw’s business has “increasing opportunities outside of the state” and 

that he seeks early termination of his supervision to “seize” more easily those business 

opportunities. (Doc. # 36, at 6). 

The government has carefully considered Mr. Shaw’s Motion. It has also 

consulted with the U.S. Probation Officer (USPO) who has supervised Daniel Shaw. 

For the reasons below, the Motion should be denied.

First, under the authorities cited above, Mr. Shaw has not shown that his conduct 

has been of the exceptional nature that warrants termination of supervision after less 

than 2 1⁄2 years of the four years supervision period. The government notes and 

appreciates that Mr. Shaw’s more recent choices and energy have been directed at 

positive outcomes in his personal life and business success. Further, the government 

understands from the supervising USPO that Mr. Shaw has complied with the terms of 

Case 1:11-cr-00406-CMA Document 494 Filed 02/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7
his supervised release. Nonetheless, mere compliance with SPR terms and Mr. Shaw’s 

business and personal successes do not warrant early termination in the context of Mr. 

Shaw’s two convictions for separate violent offenses.

Moreover, under the factors cited in Section 3583, citing to Section 3553(a), the 

nature and circumstances of Mr. Shaw’s offenses (i.e., armed bank robbery, including 

pointing a firearm at a bank employee, two additional bank robberies, and participating 

in a violent sexual assault of another inmate) do not support early termination.

Similarly, the need for deterrence also warrants rejecting Mr. Shaw’s Motion. 

Additionally, undersigned counsel understands that the Judicial Conference 

Committee on Criminal Law has approved certain criteria for early termination of 

supervision. Those criteria include “No history of violence – The defendant does not 

have any prior violent related convictions.” Mr. Shaw simply does not meet this 

criterion. 

Finally, Mr. Shaw has provided no explanation as to what impediments on his 

liberty and activities warrant early termination. As noted above, the Motion references 

his desire to do construction-flooring work outside of Colorado. (Doc. #36). However, 

based on consultation with his supervising USPO, Mr. Shaw has limited restrictions at 

present, and need only obtain permission for out-of-state work related travel, which is 

apparently easily obtainable upon request. 

II. Conclusion

Daniel Shaw has not satisfied his burden to show that early termination of his 

four-year period of supervision, after completing 2 years and 4 months, is warranted by 

his conduct or the interests of justice. Given the nature of Mr. Shaw’s convictions and 

Case 1:11-cr-00406-CMA Document 494 Filed 02/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Mr. Shaw’s Motion for early termination of 

supervision should be denied. 

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of February, 2020.

JASON R. DUNN

United States Attorney

BY: s/ Patricia Davies 

Patricia Davies

Assistant United States Attorney

U.S. Attorney’s Office

1801 California Street, Suite 1600

Denver, Colorado 80202

Phone: (303) 454-0100

Fax: (303) 454-0401

Email: patricia.davies@usdoj.gov

Attorney for Government

Case 1:11-cr-00406-CMA Document 494 Filed 02/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 7th day of February, 2020, I electronically filed the 

foregoing GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION 

OF SUPERVISED RELEASE with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which 

will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. 

 s/ Amy McDaniel 

Amy McDaniel

Legal Assistant 

 U.S. Attorney’s Office

Case 1:11-cr-00406-CMA Document 494 Filed 02/07/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7