Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-13
Citations: 498 F. App'x 657
Docket Number: No. 12-2382
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 498
Pages: 657–658

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-2382.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 7, 2013.
Filed: Feb. 13, 2013.
Robert G. Kuchar, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant.
Luis Rodriguez, Kansas City, MO, pro se.
Christina Y. Tabor, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After Luis Rodriguez had served a portion of the supervised-release term im posed as part of his sentence for a federal bank-robbery offense, he moved for early termination of supervised release, arguing that he had adjusted well to supervision, had completed all required programs, and had met all rules and regulations. The district court denied the motion, and this appeal followed. After careful review of the record, counsel's brief, and Rodriguez's pro se brief, we affirm.
In the proceedings below, both the government and the probation officer who was supervising Rodriguez opposed early termination. The probation officer, in particular, noted in his written report to the court that Rodriguez had failed to make several payments toward the large restitution obligation that was part of his criminal sentence and incorporated in his supervised-release conditions. Noting that it had considered the record and the parties' arguments, the court stated that it had decided to deny early termination, in part because the court believed that supervised release would provide Rodriguez with more time and structure to meet his restitution obligation. In these circumstances, we see no abuse of discretion in the denial of early termination. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); United States v. Lowe, 632 F.3d 996, 997-98 (7th Cir.2011) (denial of motion for early termination of supervised release is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel leave to withdraw.
. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.