Supervised Release Termination Testimonials

Client Satisfaction at its Best

Supervised release termination, or early termination of federal probation, as a major part of what we do here at PCR Consultants. It is important for present and future clients to hear from the ones that came before them. Here is what one client had to say:

“I am extremely happy to tell you that the court has granted [my] motion for termination of supervised release!!! I can’t tell you how happy and grateful I am to you and your team! You did a brilliant job and I am happy to refer you to anyone I know that might need your services.”
– Ben

Ben’s supervised release termination ended 18-months before its natural expiration. His last name and case number have been withheld per his request.

Handling Supervised Release Termination

There is a big landscape of federal law and court decisions that guide judges when making decisions on whether or not to grant a defendant’s request to gain early release from federal supervision. Policy set forth by the US Sentencing Commission adds flavor to Title 18 of the United States Code, which tells judges what they must consider when a request like this comes to their desk.

Then there are studies, papers, data, and re-offense concerns that factor in. Using all these factors, plus a few items from our proprietary “Trick Bag”, PCR Consultants enjoys a very high success rate with clients seeking early termination of their supervised release or probation.

Our Services Work!

Follow the links below for judicial orders in favor of some our successful supervised release termination clients.

Supervision terminated within a week of request! (May 2014)

Supervised Release ended before two full years were served.

Supervised Release cut immediately.

Supervised Release ended over two years early, before half of the term was served!
(Client names redacted to protect privacy)

Federal Probation Revocation Hearings

An interesting case out of the Fourth Circuit was brought to my attention by this post by the Federal Criminal Appeals Blog entitled “Just Because It’s A Supervised Release Hearing Doesn’t Mean There Are No Rules.”

As the title suggests, federal probation revocation hearings are far less formal than a criminal trial. In fact, the rules that govern these hearings appear in only one section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Rule 32.1. Below is an excerpt from the article.

Anthony Doswell was having a bad run of luck.

He was on supervised release from the end of a federal sentence. Supervised release works a bit like probation for those who have been in prison – folks coming out of a federal prison have a period of years where they have to check in with a probation officer, be drug tested, and, if they mess up, sent back to prison.

One big way to mess up is to commit a new crime. The rub is that a person can be violated – and sent back to prison – for committing a new crime, not just for being convicted of committing a new crime.

So, it’s possible for a person on supervised release to be charged with a new crime, beat the charge, then be sent to prison anyway.

Anthony Doswell was in a spot like that. He was on supervised release and had been charged with having some marijuana on his person. He also tested positive for heroin and didn’t show up to mental health treatment, or to meet with his supervising probation officer.

At the hearing, his lawyer learned that Mr. Doswell had previously been charged with heroin distribution.

Mr. Doswell objected to a violation of his supervised release based on the heroin. The government went forward with the allegation, providing the district court with the charging documents for the state court heroin distribution charge, as well as the chemist’s report.

The government did not call any witnesses.

The district court found that Mr. Doswell had violated his supervised release by selling heroin. As the Fourth Circuit summarized it,

Without explanation, the district court concluded that, “notwithstanding the objection,” the drug analysis report was “sufficient to support the [heroin] violation alleged.” Accordingly, the court found Doswell guilty of the heroin violation set forth in Supplemental Notice, a violation that the court concluded, “in itself, [wa]s sufficient for . . . a mandatory revocation [of Doswell’s supervised release].” The court then sentenced Doswell to the statutory maximum, twenty-four months of imprisonment.

On appeal, the only issue the Fourth Circuit dealt with, in United States v. Doswell, was whether, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2), Mr. Doswell had a right to have the witnesses against him testify.

The government argued that under a prior Fourth Circuit case, and the general principle that revocation hearings are less formal, it didn’t have to have a witness there.

Mr. Doswell, instead, suggested the court of appeals look at the language of Rule 32.1(b)(2), which says that at a revocation hearing, a person has an opportunity to appear, present evidence, and question any adverse witness unless the court determines that the interest of justice does not require the witness to appear

Since the district court spent exactly no time balancing whether the interests of justice didn’t require the chemist to testify against Mr. Doswell, the Fourth Circuit reversed the finding of violation and remanded.

We don’t do many posts on revocation hearings here, but the issue is important to both the federal process and our clients. If you have any questions regarding revocation (and especially how to avoid them) please give us a call at (480) 382-9287.