Court Opinion

ID: 9882010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:00:28.213626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:38.029431
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6527      Doc: 5        Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6527

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TRADON MARQUEZ DRAYTON,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:21-cr-00372-BHH-1)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Tradon Marquez Drayton, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6527       Doc: 5         Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Tradon Marquez Drayton appeals the district court’s text order denying his pro se

        motion for early termination of Drayton’s five-year term of supervised release. In his

        motion, ∗ which was filed in May 2023, Drayton argued that this relief was appropriate

        because he had paid his court fines; complied with the terms and conditions of his

        supervised release for nearly two years; completed rehabilitation and educational

        programs; was consistently employed; maintained a good relationship with his probation

        officer; and had strong family ties. Drayton further averred that being on supervised release

        precluded him from accompanying his family on a cruise to the Bahamas. The district

        court summarily denied the motion in a text order.

               “We review a district court’s decision whether to terminate an individual’s term of

        supervised release before the expiration of the term under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) under the

        narrow abuse of discretion standard.” United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th

        Cir. 1999). “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally,

        fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies

        on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v.

        Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               ∗
                Although Drayton cited 18 U.S.C. § 3564(c), which allows for early termination
        of a probationary term, Drayton’s motion should have been construed under 18 U.S.C.
        § 3583(e)(1), which authorizes a district court to terminate a supervised release term prior
        to completion.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6527       Doc: 5         Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), after a defendant has served one year of

        supervised release, a district court may terminate the remaining term after considering

        certain 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, if the court “is satisfied that such action is warranted

        by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.” The statute specifically

        identifies which of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors that the district court should consider.

        See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e), 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), (a)(4)-(7).

               In this case, though, nothing in the district court’s text order reflects consideration

        of any of the aforementioned factors. Accordingly, the court’s ruling on Drayton’s motion

        is not amenable to meaningful appellate review. We therefore vacate the district court’s

        order denying Drayton’s motion and remand for further proceedings. Accord United States

        v. Sheppard, 17 F.4th 449, 456 (3d Cir. 2021) (recognizing that, while district courts have

        much discretion in deciding an early termination motion and can satisfy the statute by

        “includ[ing] a statement that it considered the § 3553(a) factors in its analysis,” it is not

        permissible for a court to deny such a motion “without any indication in its order that it

        applied the proper legal standard”). We express no view on the merits of Drayton’s motion.

        We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

        presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                      VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                      3