[Docket No. 35]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAMDEN VICINAGE

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff,

v.

LUIS BURGOS, 

Defendant.

Crim. No. 11-528

OPINION

APPEARANCES

John M. Crockett

Matthew T. Smith

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey

Camden Federal Building & Courthouse

401 Market Street, 4th Floor

Camden, NJ 08101

On behalf of the United States

Donald F. Manco

601 Longwood Avenue

Cherry Hill, NJ 08002

On behalf of Defendant

BUMB, U.S. District Judge

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion for Early 

Termination of Supervised Release, filed September 3, 2021. [Docket No. 35.]

Having reviewed Defendant’s motion, as well as subsequent letter submissions by 

Defendant’s counsel in support of his motion [Docket No. 41 and Docket No. 42]

Case 1:11-cr-00528-RMB Document 44 Filed 02/10/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 189
2

and the Government’s response [Docket No. 38], the Court shall deny Defendant’s 

motion for the reasons stated below.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 26, 2012, Defendant Luis Burgos (“Defendant”) was sentenced to 

a term of imprisonment of 100 months to be followed by a three-year period of 

supervised release. [Docket No. 35-1.] Subsequently, Defendant was sentenced to a 

state term of imprisonment of 120 months to be followed by a five-year period of 

supervised release. [Id.] Defendant’s state sentence runs concurrent with his federal 

sentence. [Id.]

Defendant began serving his concurrent terms of supervised release in midJanuary 2020. [Id.] On September 3, 2021, after having been on supervised release 

for less than two years, the Defendant filed a Motion for Early Termination of 

Supervised Release in federal court regarding his remaining federal sentence. [Id.] At 

such time, he had sixteen months remaining in his federal term of supervised release 

and forty months remaining in his state term of supervised release. [Id.] The Court 

requested a response to Defendant’s motion by the Government [Docket No.36],

which the Government filed on October 20, 2021 opposing Defendant’s motion

[Docket No. 38]. On October 26, 2021, Defendant requested a virtual hearing on his 

motion [Docket No. 39], but his request was denied by the Court [Docket No. 40].

Defendant’s counsel then filed two additional letters on the docket in support of the 

motion on November 17, 2021 [Docket No. 41] and January 18, 2022 [Docket No. 

42].

Case 1:11-cr-00528-RMB Document 44 Filed 02/10/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 190
3

The Defendant generally alleges that his compliance with the terms of his 

supervised release, his gainful employment, and his longer state term of supervised 

release demonstrate that the remaining federal term of supervised release is 

duplicative and serves “no useful purpose.” [Docket No. 35-1.] The Defendant 

further argues that the purpose of supervised release – rehabilitation – has already

been accomplished [Docket No. 41], and that the “[D]efendant’s conduct and the 

interest of justice” weigh in favor of early termination [Docket No. 42]. In response, 

the Government contends that early termination is not warranted due to Defendant’s 

extensive criminal history and the serious nature of Defendant’s underlying offenses,

suggesting that Defendant is a continued public safety concern. [Docket No. 38.]

Additionally, the Government notes that the three-year period of federal supervised 

release is the mandatory minimum term under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).

[Id.] This latter point, the Government argues, while not precluding earlier 

termination of supervised release, counsels against such termination. [Id.]

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A term of supervised release may be terminated by the Court following the 

expiration of one year of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The statute 

provides, in relevant part, that in making such a determination the Court shall 

consider 18 U.S.C. sections 3553 (a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), 

(a)(6), and (a)(7). Such a termination may occur only after a consideration of the 

factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) if the Court is satisfied that such an action is

warranted by the conduct of the defendant and is in the interest of justice. Id. The 

Case 1:11-cr-00528-RMB Document 44 Filed 02/10/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 191
4

required factors for consideration are:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and

characteristics of the defendant;

(2) the need for the sentence imposed—

. . .

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational

training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most

effective manner;

. . . 

(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for—

(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable

category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines—

(i) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section

994(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, subject to any

amendments made to such guidelines by act of Congress

(regardless of whether such amendments have yet to be

incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments

issued under section 994(p) of title 28); and

(ii) that, except as provided in section 3742(g) [18 USCS §

3742(g)], are in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; or

(B) in the case of a violation of probation or supervised release, the

applicable guidelines or policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(3) of title 28, United States

Code, taking into account any amendments made to such guidelines or

policy statements by act of Congress (regardless of whether such

amendments have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing

Commission into amendments issued under section 994(p) of title 28);

(5) any pertinent policy statement—

Case 1:11-cr-00528-RMB Document 44 Filed 02/10/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 192
5

(A) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(2)

of title 28, United States Code, subject to any amendments made to

such policy statement by act of Congress (regardless of whether such

amendments have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing

Commission into amendments issued under section 994(p) of title 28);

and

(B) that, except as provided in section 3742(g) [18 USCS § 3742(g)], is

in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced.[;]

(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with

similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and

(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Importantly, these factors include a consideration of the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, as well as the need for the sentence to reflect the 

severity of the offense, promote adequate deterrence, and protect public safety. 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a). As the Defendant has correctly asserted, the standard for early 

termination of supervised release in the Third Circuit was recently clarified in United 

States v. Melvin. 978 F.3d 49 (3d Cir. 2020). In Melvin, the Court held that its prior 

non-precedential decisions had misinterpreted the appropriate standard in finding 

exceptional, extraordinary, new, or unforeseen circumstances to be a prerequisite 

finding for District Courts to granting a motion for early termination of supervised 

release. Id. at 53. Instead, the Court “enjoys discretion to consider a wide range of 

circumstances when determining whether to grant early termination,” including any 

new circumstances which may have arisen since sentencing occurred. Id. at 52 (citing 

United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014)). In assessing the relevant 

Case 1:11-cr-00528-RMB Document 44 Filed 02/10/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 193
6

factors pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), it is sufficient for the Court to make a 

statement that such factors have been considered, and no specific findings of fact 

with respect to each factor is required. Id. at 52–53 (citing United States v. Gammarano, 

321 F.3d 311, 315-16 (2d Cir. 2003)).

III. ANALYSIS

While the Court commends the Defendant’s success following his 

incarceration, the Court’s consideration of all of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a) establishes early termination of Defendant’s remaining federal supervised 

release is not warranted. In opposing the Defendant’s motion, the Government 

focuses primarily on an evaluation of the Defendant’s underlying offense and the 

extent of the Defendant’s criminal history, per 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and deterrence

and public safety concerns, per 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). [Docket No. 38.] The 

Defendant is currently serving concurrent sentences for multiple drug-related 

offenses, including the relevant federal conviction of possession with intent to 

distribute crack cocaine. [Docket No. 31.] With respect to the seriousness of 

Defendant’s underlying offenses, the Government points to investigations by the 

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that showed the Defendant was the leader 

of a drug trafficking organization, called "La Familia", which transported drugs from

Puerto Rico. [Docket No. 38.] As part of this leadership, the Defendant was believed 

to have engaged in wide-spread distribution of both cocaine and heroin within New 

Jersey and Pennsylvania which resulted in his federal narcotics trafficking 

conviction. [Id.] 

Case 1:11-cr-00528-RMB Document 44 Filed 02/10/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 194
7

Due to the seriousness of Defendant’s engagement in this organized criminal 

activity, as well as his extensive criminal record which may indicate a public safety 

concern, the Court agrees with the Government that early termination is inconsistent 

with the § 3553(a) factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). According to the pre-sentencing 

report, Defendant was, in fact, the leader of the organization for which the 

sentencing guidelines recommended a two level increase for his aggravating role. The 

Sentencing Court, in addition to upholding the aggravating role adjustment, also 

acknowledged the Defendant’s career offender designation. The Court nonetheless 

varied from an Offender Level 29/Criminal History Category VI (151 – 188 months) 

to Offense Level 27/Criminal History Category IV (100 – 125 months). Still, despite 

the Court’s variance, Defendant’s number of convictions for possession and 

distribution of controlled substances weigh heavily against early termination. 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)–(2). 

The Court further agrees with the Government that the additional 

consideration prescribed by 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(4), conformity with established 

sentencing ranges, does not support early termination of the Defendant’s federal term 

of supervised release. In light of this information and the mandatory minimum

sentences required under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), early termination is 

not favored.

Finally, though the Defendant would remain under state supervision even 

after the termination of federal supervised release, federal and state supervision are 

distinct with independent conditions and standards and supervised release here 

Case 1:11-cr-00528-RMB Document 44 Filed 02/10/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 195
8

serves important § 3553 objectives. See 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2). Accordingly, in the 

absence of any demonstrated justification for the early termination of federal 

supervision, it is not in the interest of justice. The Defendant’s conduct which is in 

compliance with the terms of his release is insufficient to outweigh the considerations

set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court shall deny the defendant’s motion for early 

termination of supervised release. An accompanying Order as of today’s date shall 

issue.

February 10, 2022 s/ Renée Marie Bumb

Date Renée Marie Bumb 

U.S. District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00528-RMB Document 44 Filed 02/10/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 196