Sentencing; Motion for early termination of supervised release under 18 USC § 3583(e)(1); Whether § 3742(a) impeded the court’s review of the district court’s summary order; Denial of a motion for termination of supervised release without explicitly addressing or indicating that the district court had considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors; Denial of access to probation officer documents; FedRCrimP 32.1(c)

In an issue of first impression in this circuit, the court held that district courts are required to consider the relevant § 3553(a) factors when deciding a § 3583(e)(1) motion for early termination of supervised release. Defendant-Tavarez pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison and 4 years of supervised home detention with location monitoring. This sentence was subsequently modified. He then filed a pro se motion for early termination of supervised release “based on his good behavior on release and the Board of Prison’s mishandling of his earned time credit while in custody.” The district court denied the motion by summary order. Tavarez then moved to obtain copies of the documents the probation officer provided to the district court when recommending that his motion be denied. The district court likewise denied this motion along with his request for an extension to file a notice of appeal. The court first held that because Tavarez’s early termination motion did “not challenge or seek review of the validity of the sentence itself[,]” § 3742(a) did not limit the court’s jurisdiction to review the summary order or limit the relief granted. As for the denial of the motion, Tavarez argued that the district court abused its discretion by not explicitly considering the relevant § 3553(a) factors. The court noted that the Supreme Court has not yet considered whether a district court must consider these factors when ruling on a § 3853(e)(1) motion, nor has the Sixth Circuit in a published opinion. Joining other circuits, the court held that the record must show “that the district court considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors before denying” a § 3583(e)(1) motion for early termination of supervised release. Further, the court found “no indication that the district court considered the relevant § 3553(a) sentencing factors when denying Tavarez’s Early Termination Motion.” Thus, it concluded that the district court abused its discretion. It vacated the district court’s summary order and remanded for reconsideration of the early termination motion. But it affirmed the district court’s denial of his document access motion where it “had no obligation to disclose the Supervision Report” Tavarez sought or any of its contents.