Court Opinion

ID: 9911812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 21:00:40.513622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:44.459286
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6263      Doc: 77         Filed: 12/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6263

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CHRISTOPHER HARDY ZOUKIS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00091-MR-WCM-1)

        Argued: December 5, 2023                                    Decided: December 19, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ARGUED: Jillian Marie Lesley, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia,
        South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Margaret Greenough, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.              ON BRIEF:
        Christopher R. Geel, GEEL LAW FIRM LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; Elizabeth A.
        Franklin-Best, Ranee Saunders, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South
        Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6263       Doc: 77        Filed: 12/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Appellant Christopher Hardy Zoukis appeals the district court’s order denying his

        motion for early termination of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Also

        pending before the court is the Government’s motion to dismiss Appellant’s appeal. That

        motion is denied.

               On the merits, Appellant contends the district court abused its discretion when it

        denied his motion for early termination of supervised release. Appellant pled guilty on

        December 26, 2007 to one count of knowingly possessing child pornography in violation

        of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and 2252(b)(2) and one count of knowingly receiving child

        pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), (b)(1), and 2256(8)(A). He was

        charged with these offenses while on state supervised probation for a prior felony

        conviction, taking indecent liberties with a child.         Appellant was sentenced on

        September 4, 2008 to 151 months of imprisonment and six years of supervised release.

               Appellant served his prison term, and his supervised release began on October 12,

        2018. On March 17, 2021, Appellant moved for early termination of his supervised release

        after having served approximately 30 of 72 months. Although the Government initially

        lodged an objection to Appellant’s motion for early termination, it ultimately withdrew that

        objection when Appellant passed a polygraph examination.

               The district court denied Appellant’s motion on February 14, 2022. The court

        determined Appellant’s request was unwarranted based upon Appellant’s conduct, the

        interest of justice, and the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)

        (providing a court may terminate a term of supervised release “after the expiration of one

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6263      Doc: 77         Filed: 12/19/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        year of supervised release,” “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),” when “warranted by the

        conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice”). However, the district court

        denied Appellant’s motion without prejudice and encouraged him to refile based on the

        considerable efforts Appellant had made toward rehabilitation.

                We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Pregent,

        190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999) (reviewing denial of early termination under § 3583(e)

        for abuse of discretion).      Appellant’s history and characteristics, the nature and

        circumstances of his offenses, the need to protect the public, and the importance of

        avoiding unwarranted sentence disparities weighed against early termination at this

        juncture.

               Therefore, the district court’s order denying without prejudice Appellant’s motion

        for early termination of supervised release is

                                                                                        AFFIRMED.

                                                      3