govinfo:USCOURTS-paed-2_09-cr-00361-7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION 
 : 
 v. : 
 : 
MAHN HUU DOAN : NO. 09-361-1 
 
MEMORANDUM 
 
In his motion to stay supervised release pending his appeal of our Order denying 
early termination of supervised release, the defendant complains that we denied his 
motion for early termination without “any articulated findings or stated reasoning.” In our 
Order, we clearly stated that the denial wa s based on his misrepresentation that his 
supervising probation officer did not oppose early termination. Believing that his 
misrepresentation was sufficient to deny his request , we did not elaborate on any 
reasoning. 
When we denied Doan’s motion for early termination of supervised release, we 
explained in a footnote that his representation that his supervising probation officer did 
not oppose his motion was not true. That explanation is apparently not enough for Doan. 
Thus, we will elaborate on our reason for denying his motion. 
After pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit murder for hire, Doan was sentenced 
to 82 months imprisonment to run consecutively to the sentence of 151 months he was 
serving for mortgage fraud and related offenses. He was also sentenced to a three- year 
term of supervised release. He committed the murder -for-hire scheme while on pretrial 
release awaiting sentencing on the mortgage fraud case. 

Doan began supervised release on January 23, 2025. He has been compliant with 
the conditions of supervised release. He contends his compliance merits termination after 
serving just over one -third of his ter m. He complains that supervision impedes his 
nurturing his marital and parental relationships. He cites his wife living in New York and 
his daughters living in New Jersey. He also claims, without any evidentiary support, that 
supervision interferes with his receiving adequate medical treatment for conditi ons 
caused by improper treatment while in custody of the Bureau of Prisons. 
A court may, in its discretion, terminate a term of supervised after one year “if 
termination is warranted by the defendant’s conduct and is in the interests of justice.” 18 
U.S.C. § 3583(e). Before doing so the court must consider the sentencing factors set forth 
in § 3553(a). Despite the statutory mandate that a court consider all § 3553(a) factors, 
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the need for a sentence to reflect the 
seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment is 
not relevant to the consideration of early termination of supervised release. United States 
v. Murray, 692 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2012). 
We are not required to make specific findings of fact for each statutory factor under 
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). United States v. Melvin, 978 F.3d 49, 52-53 (3d Cir. 2020). We 
need only articulate that we have considered the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 
3553(a), the defendant’s conduct, and the interests of justice in rendering a decision. See 
id. at 53. 
Doan’s misrepresentation as to the position of his supervising probation officer is 
enough to call into question his credibility regarding the other facts he cites in his motion 
for early termination. His misrepresentation is sufficient to deny his motion. 

 /s/ Timothy J. Savage 
 TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J. 

Passage view · GavelSight