United States v. Lester, No. 23-2176 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
In 2006, Charles H. Lester, Jr. was sentenced to 188 months' imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. After serving a portion of his supervised release term, the United States Probation Office filed a report recommending the early termination of Lester's supervision, citing his low risk of recidivism and compliance with the conditions of his supervision. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied this request, asserting that it did not have the authority to terminate Lester's supervised release early due to the requirement in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) that a five-year term of supervised release be imposed, which the court interpreted as precluding early termination under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).
Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit disagreed with the district court's interpretation. The appellate court held that the language of § 841(b)(1)(A) requires the imposition of a five-year term of supervised release, but does not impact a district court's ability to later terminate an individual's supervised release after the individual has served at least one year, as provided in § 3583(e)(1). Thus, the district court retained discretion to consider whether Lester's supervised release could be terminated early under § 3583(e)(1). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Gruender, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Sentencing. The 2002 amendment to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(1)(A) does not prevent the district court from exercising authority under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(e)(1) to terminate defendant's supervised release early; under a plain reading of 841(b)(1)(A), then, in spite of Sec. 3583, a district court must impose a five-year term of supervised release; however, section 841(b)(1) does not impact a court's ability under sec. 3583(e)(1) to later terminate that individual's supervised release after they have served at least one year; thus, the district court erred in determining it did not have discretion to consider a request for early termination; reversed and remanded for further proceedings
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.