USCA11 Case: 20-13440 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13440
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:06-cr-00010-ODE-WEJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHNNY BRETT GREGORY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 19, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR and LUCK, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13440 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 2 of 4
Johnny Gregory appeals pro se the denial of his motion for early termination
of his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). Gregory argues that the district
court denied his motion without identifying a reasoned basis for its ruling. Because
there is not “enough, in the record or the [district] court’s order, to allow for
meaningful appellate review of its decision,” United States v. Johnson, 877 F.3d
993, 997 (11th Cir. 2017), we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
In 2006, Gregory pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute at
least 50 grams of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and to
possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Gregory to 120 months of
imprisonment for his drug crime and to a consecutive term of 60 months of
imprisonment for his firearm offense followed by five years of supervised release.
Gregory began his term of supervised release on July 19, 2019.
On July 24, 2020, Gregory moved pro se to terminate his supervised release
based on his uneventful completion of the first year of his five-year term,
compliance with the conditions of his release, and his “exemplary post-conviction
adjustment and conduct in his supervision responsibilities.” Id. § 3583(e). The
district court sua sponte denied Gregory’s motion. The district court stated that its
decision was made “[h]aving read and considered [Gregory’s motion] and having
reviewed information received from the Probation Office.”
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13440 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 3 of 4
We review the denial of a motion for early termination of supervised release
for abuse of discretion. Johnson, 877 F.3d at 997. “Review under an abuse of
discretion standard, however, is not simply a rubber stamp.” Id. (alteration adopted
and internal quotation marks omitted). The district “court must explain its
sentencing decision[] adequately enough to allow for meaningful appellate
review.” Id.
A defendant may move to terminate his term of supervised release “at any
time after the expiration of one year of supervised release . . . .” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(1). The district court “may terminate [the] term of supervised release and
discharge the defendant . . . if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the
conduct of the defendant . . . and the interest of justice.” Id. That determination can
be made only “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).” Id. § 3583(e). The
district court need not “explicitly articulate that it considered the factors” or
identify which factors supported its decision. Johnson, 877 F.3d at 998. But the
order must contain sufficient information “that meaningful appellate review of the
factors’ application can take place.” Id.
The district court abused its discretion by denying Gregory’s motion without
“explain[ing] its sentencing decision[] adequately enough to allow for meaningful
appellate review.” Id. at 997. The district court stated that it considered Gregory’s
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13440 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 4 of 4
motion, but his motion did not reference any statutory sentencing factor. We also
cannot infer that the district court relied on the sentencing factors when the
government filed no response and a different district court judge imposed
Gregory’s sentence and term of supervised release 14 years earlier. Although the
district court “reviewed information received from the Probation Office,” it
identified no filing by the probation office from which we could determine what
guided its decision. And the record does not reflect that the probation office
submitted a report to the district court after Gregory began serving his term of
supervised release. We vacate the order denying Gregory’s motion for early
termination of supervised release and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4
United States v. Johnny Brett Gregory
Combined Opinion