govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_06-cr-00035-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 
 
 
UNITED STATES 
 
 v. 
 
JAYSON A. MANGIARACINA 
 
 
 
 
 No. 3:06-cr-35 (AWT) 
 
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 
 
 A court may grant early termination of supervised release 
in certain circumstances: 
The court may, after considering the factors set forth in 
section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), 
(a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) . . . terminate a term 
of supervised release and discharge the defendant released 
at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised 
release, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of 
Criminal Procedure relating to the modification of 
probation, if it is satisfied that such action is warranted 
by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest 
of justice. 
 
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). After considering the factors 
referenced in § 3583(e), the non-exclusive list of factors set 
forth in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.4, Application Note 1(B), the 
defendant’s arguments set forth in his motion (and reply) and 
the arguments by the government in its response, and making an 
individualized assessment of the need for ongoing supervision 
for Jayson Mangiaracina, the court concludes that his motion for 
early termination of supervised release should be denied. 

2 
 
 The defendant pled guilty to a two-count information which 
charged him, in Count 1, with Use of Interstate Facility to 
Coerce a Minor to Engage in Sexual Activity, and in Count 2, 
with Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers. 
On July 27, 2006, the defendant was sentenced to a 99-month term 
of imprisonment on Counts 1 and 2, to be served concurrently and 
to be followed by a ten-year term of supervised release. In the 
government’s opposition to the instant motion, it accurately 
summarizes the defendant’s offense conduct: 
The Presentence Report details how the defendant, who was 
twenty-one years old at the time, convinced a fourteen-
year-old victim to send a picture of herself revealing her 
bare back and upper buttocks. PSR ¶¶ 5-6. He then began to 
harass the victim, through two separate accounts, and asked 
her about the size of her breasts and to take naked 
pictures of herself using a web camera, which she 
ultimately did. PSR ¶¶ 7-8. Mr. Mangiaracina also 
threatened the victim and said that if she did not “give 
him head” he would hack into her high school website and 
post the picture she had sent, and he continued to threaten 
her if she did not give him oral sex and then ultimately 
arrived at her house. PSR ¶¶ 8-9. The defendant coerced the 
victim into performing oral sex on him. PSR ¶ 10. 
 
A few days later, he began threatening her again and when 
she blocked him, he circumvented the block and continued to 
harass her until she became so upset that she reached out 
to a friend who told her own (the friend’s mom) and the mom 
contacted the police. PSR ¶¶ 11-13. An undercover Federal 
Bureau of Investigation agent took over the victim’s 
account and after the defendant again threatened the 
undercover (posing as the victim) unless he received oral 
sex and tried to also get the victim’s friend to perform 
oral sex, Mr. Mangiaracina was ultimately arrested. PSR ¶ 
14. 
 

3 
 
Gov’t’s Response (ECF No. 66) at 4. As the government points 
out, “[a]t the time of sentencing, the defendant had a prior 
conviction for disorderly conduct after he jumped into his ex-
girlfriend’s car and damaged the vehicle by scratching it and 
denting it, PSR ¶ 30.” Id. This concerning conduct is 
described in more detail in paragraph 30 of the Presentence 
Report. 
 With respect to defendant’s conduct after he completed his 
term of imprisonment, the government states, accurately, that: 
[The defendant] appeared to be in compliance with the 
conditions of his release—and had employment and stable 
housing—but then in February of 2015, the West Hartford 
Police began an investigation into the defendant for 
harassment of a female at a gym and they soon uncovered 
that he was back to what got him in trouble in the initial 
federal case. See Dkt. Entry No. 55, Final Violation Report 
(“Several documents were provided to the U.S. Probation 
Office by the West Hartford Police Department which 
reflected Mr. Mangiaracina was communicating on the 
Internet, specifically on Craigslist, where he had been 
posting adds seeking: the company of females; sexual acts 
for payment; for the sale of personal items, to include the 
children’s Pokeman trading cards; to make customized sex 
tapes with his unidentified 18 year old girlfriend, in 
exchange for money; communications with individuals with 
whom he had seen in the community; and selfies of females 
to be submitted for what appeared to be a contest like 
promotion, where monies were being offered for 1st, 2nd and 
3rd place.”) 
 
Gov’t’s Response at 4-5 (emphasis added). 
 At the point in time when the defendant engaged in this 
conduct, he had previously appeared before the court for a 
revocation hearing on October 16, 2014, after having 

4 
 
unauthorized contact with a minor. Being required to appear 
before the court on October 16, 2014 was not sufficient to deter 
the defendant from engaging in the above-described conduct the 
following year. On September 24, 2015, the court revoked the 
defendant’s supervised release and sentenced him to a 12-month 
term of imprisonment to be served consecutively to a state 
sentence he was then serving and to be followed by a ten-year 
term of supervised release. 
 Even though the defendant had been sentenced in 2015 to a 
12-month term of imprisonment for a supervised release 
violation, 
[o]n February 6, 2020, Mr. Mangiaracina left a sexually 
explicit note on a female’s car at her place of employment. 
. . . It should be highlighted that prior to placing the 
note on the female’s vehicle, Mr. Mangiaracina’s only 
interaction with this individual was briefly at her place[] 
of employment. 
 
Probation Form 12B (ECF No. 60) at 1-2. 
 
 In light of the foregoing, the court agrees with the 
government that “[t]he defendant has demonstrated previously on 
multiple [occasions] that he needs [the] guardrails” that are in 
place as a result of being on supervised release. Gov’t’s 
Response at 6. The court concludes the purpose of sentencing 
that most needs to be served in this case is protection of the 
public. See § 3553(a)(1)(c). Early termination is not 
appropriate in this case because of the defendant’s history of 

5 
 
court-reported violations during his terms of supervision, 
because of his failure to substantially comply with his 
conditions of supervised release, and because early termination 
of the defendant’s supervised release would jeopardize public 
safety. See Guidelines § 5D1.4 Application Note 1(B) clauses 
(i), (iii), and (vi). 
For the reasons set forth above, the defendant’s Motion for 
Early Termination of Supervised Release (ECF Nos. 61 and 63) is 
hereby DENIED. 
It is so ordered. 
Signed at Hartford, Connecticut, this 7th day of May, 2026. 
 
 /s/AWT 
 Alvin W. Thompson 
 United States District Judge 
 

Passage view · GavelSight