govinfo:USCOURTS-paed-2_12-cr-00133-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM 
When judges sentence defendants to terms of supervised release, the expectation 
is that the defendant will comply with th ose terms. Doing so is commendable (not 
everyone does, unfortunately), but it’s not usually enough to justify an early termination 
of supervised release. Robert Thena’s case is no exception. He has complied with the terms 
of supervised release that Judge D uBois imposed on him, and he has worked hard to 
reintegrate into society. But he has not shown the type of circumstances to justify an early 
termination of his supervised release. 
I. BACKGROUND 
On May 15, 2012, Mr. Thena pled guilty to distribution of child pornography , 18 
U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), and possession of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4). On 
September 12, 2012, Judge DuBois sentenced Mr. Thena to 72 months imprisonment 
followed by 10 years of supervised release. Mr. Thena commenced supervised release on 
December 1, 2017. Now, having served 7.5 years of his term of supervised release, he 
seeks early termination of his supervised release. He submits that he has complied with 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
ROBERT THENA 
 

2 
 
all terms of his supervised release and has reintegrated into society with a steady job and 
a support system around him , rendering continued supervision unnecessary. The 
Government opposes his request. 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), a court may terminate a term of supervised 
release prior to its expiration. If “it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct 
of the defendant released and the interest of justice .” 28 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). Before 
terminating a defendant’s supervised release, a court must consider factors set forth in 18 
U.S.C. § 3553, including: 
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the defendant ’s history and 
characteristics; (2) the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, 
protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and provide him with 
needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional 
treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds of sentence and sentencing 
range established for the defendant's crimes; (4) pertinent policy statements issued 
by the United States Sentenc ing Commission; (5) the need to avoid unwarranted 
sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found 
guilty of similar conduct; and (6) the need to provide restitution to any victims of 
the offense. 
 
United States v. Melvin, 978 F.3d 49, 52 (3d Cir. 2020) (quotation omitted). After evaluating 
those factors, a court may terminate supervised release only if it is satisfied that “the 
defendant’s conduct and the interest of justice” warrant an early termination. 18 U.S.C. § 
3583(e)(1). The statute confers “broad discretion” on a court in making this determination. 
United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014 ). And, while there need not be 
exceptional circumstances, the Third Circuit has emphasi zed that , in general, “early 

3 
 
termination of supervised release under § 3583(e)(1) will be proper only when the 
sentencing judge is satisfied that new or unforeseen circumstances warrant it. That is 
because, if a sentence was ‘sufficient, but not great than necessary’ when first pronounced, 
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), [one] would expect that something will have changed in the interim 
that would justify an early end to a term of supervised release.” Melvin, 978 F.3d at 53 
(citation and quotation marks omitted). The Circuit did, however, “disavow any suggestion 
that new or unforeseen circumstances must be shown.” Id. 
III. DISCUSSION 
Upon consideration of the required factors under Section 3583 (e), I conclude that 
Mr. Thena’s conduct and the interest of justice do not warrant an early termination.1 
First, the offense here—possession and distribution of child pornography—is one 
of the most troubling that comes before me. Those crimes often require longer periods 
of supervised release to ensure integration into society because the impulse that leads to 
the criminal activity is often personal, not financial. Congress has acknowledged as much 
 
1 The Government argues that I should not reach the factors under Section 3 583(e) 
because Mr. Thena’s plea agreement includes a waiver of his right to collaterally attack 
his sentence, and that waiver bars this Motion. However, as the Government points out, 
judges in this District have split on that argument. Compare United States v. Mabry, 528 
F. Supp.3d 349 (E.D. Pa. 2021) with United States v. Clark, No. 06-cr-205-7 & 06-cr-207-5, 
2021 WL 3737195 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2021). I don’t have to resolve that issue because even 
if the waiver that Mr. Thena signed does not apply to this Motion, I conclude he cannot 
prevail on the merits. 

4 
 
by providing for longer periods of supervised release for those crimes that most other 
felonies. 
Second, there’s little need to deter Mr. Thena from criminal conduct, or provide 
him with educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment. 
There is, however, some residual concern that someone with a prurient interest in child 
pornography will backslide , and the structure of supervised release provide s Mr. Thena 
with some support against that happening. Maintaining the remaining term of supervised 
release therefore provides some protection to the public against future criminal conduct 
on Mr. Thena’s part. 
Third, nothing in the Sentencing Guidelines suggests that his term of supervised 
release is too long. Nor am I aware of any policy statements in the Guidelines that might 
encourage early termination of his term of supervised release. 
Fourth, lengthy terms of supervised release are the norm in child pornography 
cases like this one. Therefore, there is no concern with a sentencing disparity from 
requiring Mr. Thena to serve his term of supervised release. 
Fifth, and finally, Judge DuBois did not impose a restitution requirement on Mr. 
Thena, so that factor does not apply in this case. 
Ultimately, I cannot say that early termination of supervised release is in the interest 
of justice. Mr. Thena has not demonstrated that the conditions of supervised release 
interfere with his life in a problematic way. He has complied with the requirements of his 

5 
 
supervised release and has exhibited good conduct , which includes obtaining gainful 
employment, participating in local theater, and maintaining personal relationships with 
family. The Government does not dispute any of that. And it’s commendable. I credit Mr. 
Thena for making these apparent changes to his life. But the key here is that compliance 
with conditions of supervised release is a baseline expectation . Compliance is required, 
not exceptional. I recognize that Mr. Thena has made the most of his opportunities since 
his release from prison , but good behavior, without more, is insufficient to justify early 
termination. See United States v. Caruso, 241 F.Supp.2d 466, 469 (D.N.J. 2003). 
Mr. Thena does not argue that continued supervision poses any new burden on 
him as he continues to reintegrate into societ y, nor does he present any unforeseen 
circumstances that show a particular need for early termination. Courts routinely decline 
to terminate supervised release in such circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Martinez, 
Case No. 23-cr-201, 2024 WL 4242820 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 19, 2024); United States v. Cronin , 
Case No. 20-cr-370-01, 2024 WL 2817558 (E.D. Pa. June 3, 2024); United States v. Lui, No. 
10-cr-437, 2021 WL 242476 at *4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2021). Without any such showing, I find 
that the interests of justice weigh in favor of Mr. Thena completing his full term of 
supervised release. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
I commend Mr. Thena for the work he has done since his release to get his life back 
on track. The remainder of his term of supervised release will serve as a guardrail to ensure 

6 
 
he stays on his current course. I hope he does. But his compliance with the terms of his 
supervised release is not enough to persuade me to terminate his supervised release early. 
An appropriate Order follows. 
 BY THE COURT: 
 
 /s/ Joshua D. Wolson 
 JOSHUA D. WOLSON, J. 
July 30, 2025 

Passage view · GavelSight