govinfo:USCOURTS-ncwd-5_05-cr-00009-112

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
STATESVILLE  DIVISION 
CASE NO. 5:05-CR-00009-RLV-DCK-29 
  
 THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT  on Defendant Alvis Mosley’s pro se 
Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release (the “Motion”).  (Doc. 1712).  For the reasons 
stated below, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
 In 2006, Defendant  Alvis Mosely pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with 
intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.  (Doc. 
670 at 1).  This Court sentenced Mosley to 120 months ’ imprisonment, followed by five years ’ 
supervised release.  Id. at 1-2.  According to Federal Bureau of Prison records, Mosely completed 
his term of imprisonment in January  2014.  See Federal Inmate Locator, available at 
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (Find by Name: “Alvis Mosley”) (last visited 8/7/2017).   
 After completing more than three years of super vised release, Mosley filed the pending 
Motion.  (Doc. 1712).   In his Motion, Mosley represents that he has complied wit h the terms of 
supervision, that he has completed several job training programs and courses while on supervision, 
and that his probation off icer recommended that he file a motion for early termination of 
supervised release.  Id.  Mosley, however, did not file any supporting documents with his Motion.  
See id.  Therefore, this Court issued a n Order to Show Cause , directing Mosley to submit (1) a 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
                                        
                                        Plaintiff, 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
            v. ) ORDER 
 )  
ALVIS MOSLEY,  
 
 
) 
) 
 
                Defendant. )  
  )  
Case 5:05-cr-00009-MEO-DCK     Document 1717     Filed 08/14/17     Page 1 of 4
2 
 
supplemental brief further discussing his conduct while on supervised release and why continued 
supervision is contrary to the interests of justice; (2) supporting documentation from his probation 
officer as to his compliance with the terms of supervised  release and the probation officer’s 
position regarding the early termination of supervised release; and (3) records of the job training 
programs and courses he completed.  (Doc. 1713).   
 Mosley timely complied with this Court’s Order to Show Cause, submitting a Response 
discussing his current employment, issues with obtaining other employment purportedly due to his 
supervised release status, statements from his probation officer, and copies of  twenty certificates 
he received for completing various job training and life skills courses.  (Doc. 1714).   Mosley also 
submitted a letter from his employer, demonstrating that he has maintained the same employment 
since April 2015 and that he is presently working as a full-time employee at forty hours per work 
week.  Id. at 10.  In fact, Mosley has received several awards from his present employer.  Id. at 11-
12.  Additionally, Mosley submitted a November 2016 email chain between him and his Probation 
Officer, in which the Probation Officer advised Mosley that Mosley was “more then [sic] likely  
[sic] going to fit [the]  criteria” for the Probation Office to support his candidacy for early 
termination of supervised release and that the Probation Office hoped to get to his case by January 
15, 2017.   Id. at 9.   
 The Government filed a response to the Order to Show Cause, opposing Mosley’s Motion 
for Te rmination of Supervised Release.  (Doc. 1715) .  While the Government concedes that 
Mosley’s conduct while on supervised release “weighs significantly in favor of early termination,” 
the Government opposes termination because (1) the 18 U.S.C. §  3553(a) factors do not warrant 
early termination in light of the seriousness of Mosley’s drug offense and Mosley’s use of a firearm 
during the offense; and (2) the interests of justice do not favor granting the Motion where Mosley 
Case 5:05-cr-00009-MEO-DCK     Document 1717     Filed 08/14/17     Page 2 of 4
3 
 
misrepresented the Probation Officer’s position on early termination.  Id.  The Government also 
submitted a May 2017 e-mail from Mosley’s Probation Officer advising Mosley that the Probation 
Officer could not support Mosley’s Motion because the Probation Office has a policy of not 
approving or recommending early termination in cases where the underlyin g offense involved a 
firearm.  (Doc. 1715-1).   
 A defendant who has completed at least one year of supervised release is eligible to petition 
a District Court to terminate his  period of supervised release.  18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (1).  When 
deciding whether to prematurely end a defendant’s period of supervised release,  a Court must 
consider the factors laid out in statutorily -specified subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  See 
§ 3583(e)(1).  A Court must also  decide whether early termination of supervised release is 
“warranted both by the individual’s conduct and also by the interest of justice.”   United States v. 
Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 283 (4th Cir. 1999).   
 This Court first considers the Government’s argument that Mosley misrepresented the 
Probation Officer’s position as to early termination and engaged in “deceptive” conduct such that 
the interests of justice do not favor granting early termination.  This Court declines to adopt the 
Government’s argument and attributes any omission from Mosely response to the show cause 
order to understandable confusion on Mosely’s part.  Specifically, this Court is unable to reconcile 
Mosely’s Probation Officer’s present position that Mosely is not eligible for a recommendation of 
early termination based on Mosely’s  possession of a firearm during the underlying offense of 
conviction with the Probation Officer’s earlier position that Mosely was likely to fit the criteria for 
the Probation Office to move for early termination.  Obviously, Mosely’s possession of a firearm 
during his 1999 to 2005 conspiracy offense was not an intervening event and would have been 
well known to the Probation Officer when the Probation Officer initially advised Mosely that he 
Case 5:05-cr-00009-MEO-DCK     Document 1717     Filed 08/14/17     Page 3 of 4
4 
 
likely fit the criteria for early termination.  Accordingly, where this Court is unable to understand 
why, if the Probation Office has a policy against recommending early termination where a firearm 
was involved in a drug offense, the Probation Office advised Mosely that he likely to fit the criteria 
for early termination, this Court finds that Mosely did not intentionally deceive this Court and 
further finds the Government’s argument to that affect somewhat regrettable given Mosely’s very 
commendable conduct while on supervised release. 
 Turning to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, however, this Court concludes that termination 
of supervised release is not appropriate  at this juncture .  Most prominently , the nature and 
circumstances of Mosely’s underlying offense and the seriousness of Mosely’s underlying offense, 
including the involvement of a firearm, warrant continued supervision.  See 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3553(a)(1), (2)(A).  Additionally, while Mosely’s conduct while on supervised release greatly 
diminishes any threat he may pose to the public, the extended duration of his underlying criminal 
offense and the involvement of a firearm in the underlying criminal offense both suggest that 
further supervision would serve to protect the public where Mosely has yet to complete 80% of his 
original term of supervision.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C).  Accordingly, this Court concludes 
that the 18 U.S.C. §  3553(a) factors do not warrant termination of supervised release at this 
juncture; however, in light of Mosely’s strong rehabilitative efforts to date, M osely’s Motion for 
Early Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. 1712) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and 
with leave to file a new motion for early termination of supervised release upon successful 
completion of 80% of his original, five-year term of supervised release.  
 SO ORDERED.  
 Signed: August 14, 2017 
Case 5:05-cr-00009-MEO-DCK     Document 1717     Filed 08/14/17     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight