United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
JOY FLOWERS CONTI, Chief District Judge.
I. Introduction and Background
Pending before the court is a motion for reconsideration and motion to terminate supervision (ECF No. 816) filed by pro se defendant Frederick Banks ("defendant"). On March 10, 2006, defendant-after being convicted of eight counts of mail fraud-was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of sixty-three months and a term of supervised release of thirty-six months, and ordered to pay $15, 100.10 in restitution to victims of his offense. (ECF No. 391.) Defendant's 36-month term of supervised release was subject to numerous conditions, including-but not limited to-the following conditions:
- Any remaining restitution shall be paid in monthly installments of not less than 10 percent of the defendant's gross monthly income.
- The defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local crime.
- The defendant shall not incur new credit charges or open additional lines of credit without approval of the probation officer, unless the defendant is in compliance with the installment payment schedule.
Defendant was released from custody of the Bureau of Prisons on May 24, 2013. On October 23, 2013, the United States Probation Office ("USPO") filed a petition informing the court that defendant committed wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, and requesting this court to issue a warrant for defendant's arrest. (ECF No. 672.) On the same day, the court granted the USPO's request. (ECF No. 673.) On October 24, 2013, the USPO filed a supplemental petition informing the court that defendant attempted to open bank accounts, without the approval of the probation officer, through Gain Capital, LLC. (ECF No. 376.)
On October 25, 2013, November 20, 2013, and November 25, 2013, the court held a supervised release revocation hearing with respect to the USPO's petition and supplemental petition. At the conclusion of the hearing on November 25, 2013, the court determined defendant violated the condition of his supervised release that he not commit another federal, state, or local crime. (ECF No. 715.) The court sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment of fourteen months and a term of supervised release of six months to be served at a community confinement center. (Id.) The term of supervised release was subject to the same conditions originally imposed upon defendant on March 10, 2006, and the additional condition that the term of supervised release "shall be served at a community confinement center." (Id.) Defendant appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals the court's determination that he violated a condition of his supervised release and the imposition of the conditions of supervised release. (ECF Nos. 723, 728.) On January 7, 2014, the court of appeals denied defendant's petition for writ of mandamus. (ECF No. 737.)
On January 30, 2015, the USPO filed a petition informing the court of the following:
The defendant was directed to complete six months at Renewal until the expiration of his supervised release on April 28, 2015. On December 26, 2014, our office received an incident report from Renewal for failure to pay subsistence. The defendant previously signed an agreement on October 30, 2014, agreeing to pay 25% of his gross wages to the Administration of Renewal, INC. On January 23, 2015, the defendant learned that he would not be released from Renewal before April 28, 2015. As a result, he withdrew his consent to deposit his money order to pay subsistence to Renewal and was unsuccessfully discharged from Renewal on January 26, 2015.
(ECF No. 810.) The USPO in the petition requested this court to hold a show cause hearing with respect to the alleged violation of defendant's condition of release to serve his six-month term of supervised release at a community confinement center. (Id.) The court granted the USPO's petition, and held a show cause hearing on February 2, 2015. (ECF No. 813.) The court determined defendant violated the condition of his supervised release to serve his six-month term of supervised release at a community confinement center. (ECF No. 823.) The court revoked defendant's term of supervised release and sentenced him to a term of supervised release of three months and twenty-seven days, to be served from February 2, 2015, until May 29, 2015. (ECF No. 823.) The court imposed upon defendant the standard conditions of supervised release, the conditions imposed upon him on November 25, 2014, and sixteen additional conditions of supervised release, including-but not limited to-the following conditions:
13. On or before February 6, 2015, the defendant shall make payment to Renewal, Inc. for all contractual obligations by money order. The defendant shall mail or hand-deliver the money order to Renewal, Inc., Attention: Earl Kalchthaler, and fax a copy of proof of payment to his probation officer.
16. Commencing on February 2, 2015, the defendant shall be placed on home detention for a period of 3 months and 27 days (2/2/15-5/29/15). During the period of home detention, the defendant shall remain at his place of residence except for employment; education; religious services; medical, substance abuse, or mental health treatment; attorney visits; court appearances; court ordered obligations; to shop for food and clothing; barbershop visits; or other activities approved in advance by the probation officer. At the direction of the probation office, the defendant shall wear an electronic device, i.e., a cell unit, and shall observe the rules specified by the Probation Department.
(ECF No. 823 at 4.)
On February 5, 2015, defendant filed the motion for reconsideration and motion to terminate supervision (ECF No. 816) currently pending before the court. On February 6, 2015, the government filed a response to defendant's motion. (ECF No. 819.) On February 17, 2015, defendant filed an exhibit in support of his motion. (ECF No. 820.)
Defendant entitled his motion "Notice of Appeal: Motion for Reconsideration: and Motion to Terminate Supervision." (ECF No. 816.) The court understands defendant's motion as a request to the court to reconsider its decision to impose the term of supervised release upon the defendant in the first instance. A review of the entirety of defendant's motion indicates that defendant also is requesting this court to terminate his sentence of supervised release because he satisfied his conditions of release to pay restitution through May 29, 2015, and pay Renewal, Inc. in accordance with his contractual obligations. Upon consideration of the facts of this case, which with the court is intimately familiar, and the submissions of the parties, the court will deny defendant's motion for the reasons stated herein.
II. Legal Standard
A. Motion for ...