United States of America v. Christopher Zoukis

PER CURIAM:



Appellant Christopher Hardy Zoukis appeals the district court's order denying his

motion for early termination of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Also

pending before the court is the Government's motion to dismiss Appellant's appeal. That

motion is denied.

On the merits, Appellant contends the district court abused its discretion when it

denied his motion for early termination of supervised release. Appellant pled guilty on

December 26, 2007 to one count of knowingly possessing child pornography in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and 2252(b)(2) and one count of knowingly receiving child

pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), (b)(1), and 2256(8)(A). He was

charged with these offenses while on state supervised probation for a prior felony

conviction, taking indecent liberties with a child. Appellant was sentenced on

September 4, 2008 to 151 months of imprisonment and six years of supervised release.

Appellant served his prison term, and his supervised release began on October 12,

2018. On March 17, 2021, Appellant moved for early termination of his supervised release

after having served approximately 30 of 72 months. Although the Government initially

lodged an objection to Appellant's motion for early termination, it ultimately withdrew that

objection when Appellant passed a polygraph examination.

The district court denied Appellant's motion on February 14, 2022. The court

determined Appellant's request was unwarranted based upon Appellant's conduct, the

interest of justice, and the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)

(providing a court may terminate a term of supervised release "after the expiration of one



year of supervised release,” "after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1),

(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7),” when "warranted by the

conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice”). However, the district court

denied Appellant's motion without prejudice and encouraged him to refile based on the

considerable efforts Appellant had made toward rehabilitation.

We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Pregent,

190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999) (reviewing denial of early termination under § 3583(e)

for abuse of discretion). Appellant's history and characteristics, the nature and

circumstances of his offenses, the need to protect the public, and the importance of

avoiding unwarranted sentence disparities weighed against early termination at this

juncture.

Therefore, the district court’s order denying without prejudice Appellant’s motion

for early termination of supervised release is AFFIRMED