You're viewing Docket Item 45 from the case USA v. Matthews. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




HEATHER WILLIAMS
Federal Defender
RACHELLE BARBOUR, Bar #185395
Research and Writing Attorney
801 I Street, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 498-5700
Attorney for Defendant
ZACHARY MATTHEWS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.

ZACHARY MATTHEWS,

Defendant.

_______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. Cr. S. 05-028-GEB

UNOPPOSED PETITION TO TERMINATE
SUPERVISED RELEASE UNDER 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(1); [proposed] ORDER

Judge: Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

Defendant, ZACHARY MATTHEWS, hereby moves the Court to terminate

his term of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). The
four-year term of supervised release began on April 4, 2010. Mr.
Matthews has already completed over three years of that term. Only
approximately eight months remain.

Title 18, section 3583(e)(1) of the United States Code authorizes
the Court to terminate a defendant's term of supervised release at any
time after the expiration of one year of supervision if the Court is
"satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

defendant released and the interest of justice." No hearing is
requested for this unopposed petition.

Although Mr. Matthews’s conviction is from this Court, he is being

supervised in the Central District of California where he lives and
works. Jurisdiction over his case remains in this court. Prior to
filing this petition, defense counsel and Mr. Matthews corresponded
with his supervising probation officer to ensure that she would have no
opposition to this petition. The officer has indicated that Mr.
Matthews is on her low-intensity caseload, is maintaining employment,
and staying drug free. She takes “no position” regarding this
petition.

Defense counsel has also provided the Probation Office in the this

district with a draft of this petition. That office has considered
this petition and is in agreement with early termination of Mr.
Matthews’ supervised release. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Phil
Talbert has reviewed this petition and on behalf of the government does
not oppose early termination of supervision for the reasons stated
herein.

Section 3583(e) directs the Court to consider the purposes of

sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C),
(a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6) and (a)(7) in deciding whether the
terminate a term of supervised release. The Judicial Conference has
identified the following criteria to assess eligibility for early
termination:

Officers should consider the suitability of early termination
for offenders as soon as they are statutorily eligible. The
general criteria for assessing whether a statutorily eligible
offender should be recommended to the court as an appropriate
candidate for early termination are as follows:

1. stable community reintegration (e.g., residence,

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

family, employment);
2. progressive strides toward supervision objectives
and in compliance with all conditions of supervision;
3. no aggravated role in the offense of conviction,
particularly large drug or fraud offenses;
4. no history of violence (e.g., sexually assaultive,
predatory behavior, or domestic violence);
5. no recent arrests or convictions (including
unresolved
ongoing,
uninterrupted patterns of criminal conduct;
6. no recent evidence of alcohol or drug abuse;
7. no recent psychiatric episodes;
8. no identifiable risk to the safety of any identifiable
victim; and
9. no identifiable risk to public safety based on the Risk
Prediction Index (RPI).

charges),

pending

or

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8E, Ch. 3 § 380.10(b), “Early
Termination” (Monograph 109)(rev’d 2010)(emphasis added).

Pursuant to the policy, “there is a presumption in favor of

recommending early termination” for supervisees after the first 18
months if they are not “career violent and/or drug offenders, sex
offenders, or terrorists,” if they “present no identified risk to the
public or victims,” and if they are “free from any moderate or high
severity violations.” Id., § 380.10(g).

Further, on February 16, 2012, the Honorable Robert Holmes Bell,

Chair of the Committee on Criminal Law of the Judicial Conference,
issued a memorandum to all United States District Court Judges
encouraging them to grant early termination of supervised release in
appropriate cases as an effort to reduce expenditures in the probation
and pretrial services programs. (Exh. A.) Terminating “appropriate
cases before they reach their full term saves resources and allows

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

officers to focus on offenders who continue to pose the greatest risk
of recidivism.” Judge Bell’s memorandum notes that supervision costs
approximately $3,938 per year per case. Analysis by the Administrative
Office of the Courts indicates that offenders who received early
termination were “arrested less often, for less serious charges, and
were sentenced to terms of imprisonment less often.” Accordingly,
“[f]rom a policy standpoint, it appears that the above criteria, when
properly applied, does not jeopardize public safety.” Id.

Mr. Matthews satisfies all the criteria for early termination. He

has completed all the terms of supervision and has no outstanding
monetary penalties. He has been sober for over seven years, completed
the Bureau of Prisons Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP), and passed
all drug tests during his period of supervised release. He also has to
pass employer-mandated drug tests at work. Mr. Matthews has no arrests
or convictions other than this one.

Mr. Matthews was convicted of a drug trafficking offense for which
he received a 7-year term of custody. While incarcerated, Mr. Matthews
took courses in computers, horticulture, and building trades, nearly
exhausting the training opportunities offered at his institution. Mr.
Matthews was released from prison in 2009 to a halfway house in the
Northern District. He stayed there until April 3, 2010, his first date
on supervised release.

During his term of supervision, Mr. Matthews has been making great

strides. Upon moving to the Central District, he was employed as an
electrical laborer by Jacobs Field Services North America, Inc. He was
assigned to the Carson Business Unit Refinery of BP (formerly British
Petroleum). Mr. Matthews worked for Jacobs, Inc. from October 3, 2011,
to April 18, 2012, when he was laid off as part of a broader company

4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

staff reduction. He received a favorable performance evaluation and
was considered eligible for rehire by the same company. (Exh. B.)

After being laid off, Mr. Matthews completed an eight-week

tractor/trailer Class A licensing course on August 24, 2012. (Exh. C.)
Prior to enrolling in the course, he sought a waiver from the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)
eligibility requirements. Because of his prior conviction, he was
concerned that he might not meet federal security requirements to gain
access to secure areas of federally regulated facilities and vessels.
On September 11, 2012, the TSA granted Mr. Matthews a waiver, thereby
enabling him to hold a TWIC license and obtain access to those secure
facilities. (Exh. D.) These privileges include the ability to drive
in and out of our nation’s ports. The TWIC also serves as the
preliminary credential that may later allow Mr. Matthews to get a
hazardous materials endorsement from the TSA.

With his certification and credentials in order, Mr. Matthews

found a trucking company willing to assess his skills and to consider
employing him, but unfortunately the company was unable to give him
trucking routes that would allow him to comply with the travel
restrictions of his supervised release. In October 2012, he got a job
with Veolia Environmental Services driving a vacuum truck in the oil
refineries in Southern California. He has worked there consistently
since. Zachary’s boss, Dave Bowser, recently shared an email he
received from a satisfied client, who noted,

I have had the opportunity on several different opportunities to
work directly with Zach Matthews, he has always completed any of
his work tasks in a very professional manner. Zach is a employee
that every company would be glad to have as aprt of the team. The
extra effort he showed on Rain4Rent tank located @ T-141 last

5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

night is perfect example of how he will go above and beyond his
normal work scope. Please, Thank Zach for his efforts we @
Chevron really appreciate all that he does.
(Email from Rod Evenson, Exh. E.)
Mr. Matthews is currently working 80 hours a week for Veolia.

(Exh. F.) He has been able to save money, establish financial
stability, and has establish good credit. He has lived with the same
roommate for almost 2 years, and his roommate describes him as “ideal”
(Exh G.)

Mr. Matthews continues to have strong relationships with his

extended family. He has a cousin, Amy Vargas, whose husband, Chris
Vargas, is a Sergeant with the Manhattan Beach Police Department. Ms.
Vargas attests that Mr. Matthews had assisted her and her husband with
repairs on the Vargas’s new home. In a job reference letter, she says
that Zachary is “a person of good moral character.” (Exh. H.) Mr.
Matthews also maintains a close relationship with his family. (Exhs.
I & J.)

1

The Court is often called upon to impose serious consequences for

defendants who violate supervised release. Zachary Matthews has
completed every condition asked of him and has far gone beyond the
requirements of his supervision. He has fully reintegrated into
society and is a valued worker, housemate, family member, and citizen.
He has achieved stable community reintegration in terms of housing,
family, and employment. He is in full compliance with all terms of
supervision. He had no aggravated role in the offense, has no history
of violence, has no other arrests or convictions at any time, and is

1

These letters date from the period before Mr. Matthews found
his current job with VEOLIA, at a time when it appeared that he would
not be able to find a trucking job that would comply with his travel
restrictions.

6

not using controlled substances. He has no psychiatric issues. He is
an ideal candidate for early termination of supervised release based on
every factor the Court must consider.

Given Mr. Matthews's commendable reentry into the community and
performance on supervised release, he respectfully requests that the
Court order that his term of supervision be terminated under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e).

DATED: July 25, 2013



Respectfully submitted,
HEATHER WILLIAMS
Federal Defender
/s/Rachelle Barbour
________________________________
RACHELLE BARBOUR
Assistant Federal Defender
Attorney for Defendant
ZACHARY MATTHEWS

O R D E R

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), the Court hereby TERMINATES

the term of supervised release in this case and discharges Mr.
Matthews.
Dated: July 30, 2013


GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7