## Facts

- Randy Cunningham was a retired military hero and former United States congressman with no prior criminal record.
- The federal government obtained Cunningham’s conviction in federal district court for tax evasion.
- Cunningham’s conviction and sentence caused major personal and reputational consequences, including the loss of his home, marriage, and standing in the community.
- The court sentenced Cunningham to imprisonment, home confinement, and three years of supervised release.
- The court also ordered Cunningham to pay restitution and back taxes.
- After completing imprisonment and home confinement, Cunningham served one year of supervised release.
- During supervised release, Cunningham complied with his conditions and performed extensive volunteer work.
- Many community leaders submitted letters supporting Cunningham’s request for early termination and describing his rehabilitation and low risk of reoffending.
- The Internal Revenue Service collected about one-third of the total amount Cunningham owed and continued to garnish roughly one-third of his monthly income.
- Cunningham moved for early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).
- The government objected, relying on an internal policy to oppose early termination unless a defendant completes two-thirds of the supervised-release term and pays monetary penalties in full.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should terminate Cunningham’s supervised release early under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), after he completed one year of supervision, based on his conduct and the interest of justice.
2. Whether the government’s internal policy and Cunningham’s unpaid restitution and back taxes required the court to deny early termination despite the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

## Decision

- The court granted Cunningham’s motion and terminated his supervised release.
- The court held that § 3583(e)(1) permits early termination after one year when the defendant’s conduct and the interest of justice warrant it, after the court considers the applicable § 3553(a) factors.
- The court rejected the government’s position that its internal “two-thirds served and paid in full” policy should control the outcome.
- The court found that Cunningham’s record on supervision—full compliance, substantial community service, and strong community support—showed that continued supervision would add little to deterrence, public safety, or rehabilitation.
- The court concluded that unpaid restitution and tax liabilities did not, by themselves, require continued supervision where collection was already occurring through IRS garnishment and could continue without supervised release.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), a district court may terminate supervised release after one year if the court finds that the defendant’s conduct and the interest of justice warrant termination, after considering the relevant § 3553(a) factors.
- In deciding a motion under § 3583(e)(1), the court must make an individualized determination based on the statutory factors, not a categorical rule tied to a set fraction of time served.
- Executive-branch policies about when to oppose or support early termination may be considered, but they do not bind the court’s exercise of discretion under the statute.
- Outstanding restitution or tax debt is a valid consideration under § 3553(a), but it is not an automatic bar to early termination, especially when collection tools (such as garnishment) remain effective without supervision.
- Supervised release is aimed at reintegration and protection of the public; when a defendant’s post-release conduct shows low risk and strong compliance, the marginal benefit of continued supervision may be minimal.

## Conclusion

The court terminated Cunningham’s supervised release after one year because his compliant post-sentence conduct, extensive volunteer work, and strong community support satisfied the purposes reflected in the applicable § 3553(a) factors, and neither the government’s internal policy nor Cunningham’s remaining financial obligations justified keeping him on supervision when tax collection could continue through garnishment without it.


United States v. Cunningham, 2014 WL 3002207 (2014)