United States District Court, W.D. Virginia
September 18, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
WILLIAM DAVID BRIDGES, Defendant.
William David Bridges, Pro Se Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES P. JONES, District Judge.
The defendant, proceeding pro se, has moved for an early termination of his supervised release. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
The defendant William David Bridges was charged in an Indictment in this court with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2250 by failing to register as a sex offender as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 16901-16962. SORNA requires all "sex offenders, " defined as "individual[s] who [have been] convicted of a sex offense, " to register in each jurisdiction where they are a resident, employee, or student. 42 U.S.C. §§ 16911, 16913. Pursuant to an agreement with the government, the defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2), reserving his ability to appeal the denial of a an earlier Motion to Dismiss. See Unted States v. Bridges , 901 F.Supp.2d 677 (W. D. Va. 2012). On January 24, 2013;, the defendant was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervision. The judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals. United States v. Bridges , 741 F.3d 464, 470 (4th Cir. 2014).
Bridges has served his time in prison. He reports that his release date was August 15, 2013, and he requests that his supervision be terminated or reduced because he has so far obeyed all of the conditions of supervision.
I have the authority to terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant after the expiration of one year of supervision, if justified by the defendant's conduct and in the interest of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). While I am pleased that the defendant appears to be satisfying his obligations, I will not exercise my discretion to reduce his supervision. In light of the seriousness of his offense, and the defendant's history and characteristics as shown by the presentence investigation report, I believe that further supervision as ordered is required.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the defendant's motion (ECF No. 80) is DENIED.