govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_19-cr-00383-0

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. ) Case No. CR-19-383-D-2 
 ) 
JIMMY ALAN HERZFELD, ) 
 ) 
 Defendant. ) 
 
ORDER 
 The Court is in receipt of a letter from Defendant Jimmy Alan Herzfeld, which the 
Court construes as a motion for early termination of Defendant’s supervised release [Doc. 
No. 90]. The government has filed a Response in Opposition [Doc. No. 92]. 
 On May 5, 2021, Defendant pled guilty to one count of drug conspiracy, in violation 
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). [Doc. Nos. 53, 55]. On July 22, 2022, Defendant was sentenced 
to 48 months of probation, which was a downward variance from the advisory Guidelines-
range sentence of 78 to 97 months of incarceration. [Doc. Nos. 72, 73]. 
On March 9, 2023, Defendant’s probatio n officer petitioned th e Court to revoke 
Defendant’s term of probation because Defendant had possessed firearms and ammunition 
and fired multiple firearms in October 2022 , which violated Defe ndant’s conditions of 
supervision. [Doc. No. 75]. The Court revoked Defendant’s probationary sentence, and the 
Court sentenced Defendant to five months of incarceration, to be followed by three years 
of supervised release. [Doc. No. 86]. 

2 
 
Defendant’s three-year term of supervised release is set to e xpire on September 5, 
2026. In the present motion, Defendant states that he has fully complied with all conditions 
of his supervision, that he has maintained steady employment, and that he has demonstrated 
rehabilitation such that continue d supervision is no longer necessary to ensure lawful 
conduct. [Doc. No. 90, at 1]. De fendant adds that “[e]arly termination would allow me to 
continue advancing in my career, pursue add itional opportunities that require flexibility, 
and further support my family without the limitations of supervision.” Id. 
The government opposes De fendant’s request. [Doc. No. 92]. Although the 
government commends Defendant’s behavior while on supervised release, the government 
notes the serious nature of the underlying drug conspiracy offens e. With respect to 
Defendant’s initial term of prob ation that was previously re voked, the government adds 
that Defendant did not just violate his term s of probation, but he committed a new crime 
by possessing firearms as a felon after the Court had downwardly varied to a probationary 
sentence. Finally, the government asserts that Defendant is currently on a relatively light 
monitoring schedule and is only required to submit a quarterly drug test, which the 
government contends has not prevented him from achieving either personal or professional 
success while on supervised release. 
 A district court has discretionary authority to terminate a term of supervised release 
and discharge the defendant at any time after th e expiration of one year of supervision if, 
after considering certain § 3553 factors, the court 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). 

3 
 
 Upon consideration of Defendant’s motion in light of the information provided by 
the government, the Court finds that early term ination of Defendant’s term of supervised 
release is not warranted at this time. The Court commends Defendant for complying with 
the conditions of his sup ervised release and making si gnificant progress toward 
rehabilitation. However, in light of all the circumstances in this case, the Court declines to 
terminate Defendant’s term of supervision prematurely. Rather, the Court is confident that 
Defendant can continue to succeed in his career and personal life while finishing out the 
last few months of his term of supervised release. 
 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for early termination of 
supervised release [Doc. No. 90] is DENIED. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED this 15
th day of June, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
TIMO~b E~I~~~ 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Passage view · GavelSight