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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Edward Mendoza,

Defendant.

No. CR-15-01325-001-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendant Edward Mendoza’s pro se request for early release 

from supervised release.1 (Doc. 59). The Government has filed a Response, objecting to 

his request. (Doc. 61). Defendant’s probation officer supports his request. For the 

reasons stated herein, the Court must deny Defendant’s request.

I. Background

On October 20, 2015, a federal grand jury returned an Indictment charging 

Defendant with two counts for sexual abuse of a ward under 18 U.S.C. § 2243(b). (Doc. 1). 

On September 19, 2016, he entered a guilty plea to Count 1 of the Indictment. In his plea

agreement, Defendant admitted that from February 1, 2015, through April 2, 2015, he was 

a Correctional Officer for the Federal Bureau of Prisons where he supervised male and 

female inmates. (Doc. 29 at 7). He admitted that during that time, while at the women’s 

facility, he engaged in sexual abuse with an inmate who was in official detention and under 

the custodial, supervisory, and disciplinary authority of prison officials, including himself. 

1 Defendant Mendoza is not on probation; rather, he is on supervised release following his 

custody term.

Case 2:15-cr-01325-DJH Document 63 Filed 06/07/22 Page 1 of 4
- 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

27

28

(Id.) Specifically, the Defendant admitted to having sexual intercourse with the 

victim/ward while in the UNICOR building. (Id.) On March 22, 2017, this Court 

sentenced Defendant Mendoza to a sixteen-month term of custody to be followed by five

years on supervised release. (Doc. 49).

Defendant Mendoza’s five year supervised release term will end in June 2023, 

approximately one year from now. In support of his request for early termination, he states 

that he paid all fines and restitution, has been law-abiding, went back to college, and earned 

his associates degree. (Doc. 59). He further states that he has been employed full-time and 

that he has reconciled with his family. (Id.) The assigned probation officer agrees with 

these statements, and the Government does not dispute his efforts. (Doc. 61 at 7). 

Furthermore, the Defendant expresses remorse for his conduct. (Doc. 59 at 1–2). 

The Court acknowledges Defendant’s compliance with his supervisory release 

terms, and it recognizes the efforts he is making and has made toward rehabilitation. His 

efforts do not, however, permit the Court to grant his request because the law does not 

permit the Court to do so.

II. Law and Analysis

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), “after considering a subset of the sentencing factors 

set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), a court may terminate a term of supervised release ‘if 

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

interest of justice.’” United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 

2014) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1)) (emphasis added). “The expansive phrases 

‘conduct of the defendant’ and ‘interest of justice’ make clear that 

a district court enjoys discretion to consider a wide range of circumstances when 

determining whether to grant early termination.” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1))

(emphasis added). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) states that “the authorized term of 

supervised release . . . for any offense under section . . . 2243 . . . is any term of years not 

less than 5, or life.” (Emphasis added). The minimum mandatory dictate is

“notwithstanding subsection (b),” which sets the term of supervised release based upon the 

Case 2:15-cr-01325-DJH Document 63 Filed 06/07/22 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

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

27

28

class of felony. Id. Additionally, though advisory, U.S.S.G. 5D1.2(c) states that the term 

of supervised release imposed shall be not less than any statutorily required term of 

supervised release. Thus, because Defendant was convicted of one of the listed § 3583(k) 

offenses, it is presumed that he is required to serve “not less than 5” years on supervised 

release. 

The Government points out the tension between § 3583(e)(1) and § 3583(k). They 

note, and the Court observes, that Ninth Circuit case law is non-existent as to how to 

reconcile the two statutes. However, the Court is guided by other court opinions that have. 

First, in United States v. Legan, the district court observed that § 3583(k) was enacted to 

increase penalties for certain sex offenses. 2018 WL 6441046, at *4 (D. Mont. Dec. 7, 

2018) (remanded on other grounds in United States v. Legan, 805 F. App’x 515 (9th Cir. 

2020)). The district court reasoned that in providing for a mandatory minimum supervised 

release term in that statute, Congress curtailed the judicial discretion that is otherwise 

appropriate in all other cases. Id. Though the Legan court did not address the apparent 

conflicts in § 3583(k) and § 3583(e), another district court denied a defendant’s early 

supervised release termination request because the defendant had “served only thirty 

months of his supervised release which does not meet the mandatory five year minimum 

required under § 3583(k).” United States v. Todd, 2021 WL 2639034, at *2 (D. Idaho June 

25, 2021).

Defendant was convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(b), a crime that carries a minimum 

five year supervised release term pursuant to § 3583(k). So, despite his progress, he must 

complete that minimum term. Finally, the Court’s opinion is supported by its analysis of 

the § 3553(a) factors at time of sentencing, which included Defendant’s abuse of position, 

adding to the victim’s vulnerability and rendering her incapable of consenting to the acts. 

And, as mentioned above, Defendant himself recognized that the five year supervised 

release term applied to his conduct. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:15-cr-01325-DJH Document 63 Filed 06/07/22 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

27

28

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying the Defendant’s Motion for Early Termination of his 

Supervised Release (Doc. 59).

Dated this 6th day of June, 2022.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cr-01325-DJH Document 63 Filed 06/07/22 Page 4 of 4