US v. Emmett, No. 13-50387 (4-17-14)(Nelson with Paez; dissent by Nguyen).
The district court denied defendant's motion for early termination of SR for failing to adequately explain why the court denied the motion. There was no response by probation or the prosecutor. The defendant had argued that he had obeyed the SR terms, his offense was not violent, SR was a waste of resources, and that he was not receiving any benefit. The court stated that he denied it because it was not undue hardship. It was not an abuse of discretion to focus on one factor or to weight that factor. It was an abuse of discretion not to address the issues raised, or have a hearing. More was required. Dissenting, Nguyen would affirm. The motion was short and seemingly copied and the court should have wide latitude. Form is being elevated over substance.