You Have the Right to Request Termination of Federal Supervised Release Even if Probation Doesn’t Agree

A recent Sixth Circuit case exposed a major misunderstanding of federal law, one that affects thousands of people still under supervision. In United States v. Evans, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22054 (6th Cir. Aug. 26, 2025), the appellate court vacated and remanded a district judge’s decision after she refused to even consider a man’s motion for early termination. Her reason? She said she only reviews such requests if they come from the probation office.

That’s not how the law works.

What Happened

Robert Evans filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), asking the court to end his lifetime term of federal supervised release after four years of clean supervision. He explained that he had maintained a law-abiding life, the conditions of supervision were keeping him from advancing in employment, and that the lifetime term was far longer than necessary.

The new judge assigned to his case acknowledged Evans’s post-release progress, then denied the motion outright. Her written order said:

“The Court only considers requests for modification or termination of supervised release, however, if the request is made to the Court by the federal probation officer responsible for supervising the defendant.”

In other words, she refused to consider his motion at all because it didn’t come from Probation.

Why That’s Wrong

Federal law explicitly allows anyone on supervised release to request termination after one year. Section 3583(e)(1) states:

“The court may terminate a term of supervised release at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release … upon the motion of the defendant, the Bureau of Prisons, or the probation officer.”

Nothing in the law requires a probation officer to approve or submit the request. Congress gave this right directly to the person on supervision. The judge’s policy of ignoring motions from defendants contradicts federal law and undermines the whole purpose of judicial review.

What the Sixth Circuit Said

On appeal, Evans argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion without considering the required sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Sixth Circuit vacated the denial and sent the case back, noting that the record contained no evidence that the judge considered the § 3553(a) factors.

The appellate court reaffirmed that a judge must evaluate every early termination motion under § 3553(a) and determine whether it is “warranted by the conduct of the defendant and the interest of justice.” A district court cannot have a blanket policy of denying motions simply because they weren’t filed by Probation.

Why This Case Matters

This case is more than a procedural mistake; it’s a warning flag. Many people on supervised release believe they can’t ask for early termination without permission from their probation officer. That’s false. Federal law says the court may consider a motion “upon the motion of the defendant.”

If a judge refuses to even consider a termination motion by someone on supervision, that’s reversible error. And if a denial fails to mention the § 3553(a) factors, things like rehabilitation, employment, and conduct, that’s also grounds for appeal.

Takeaway

If someone has completed at least one year of supervision, they have the right to ask for early termination or modification, no permission required. They don’t need their probation officer’s blessing. What they do need is a well-prepared motion that shows stability, rehabilitation, and why continued supervision serves no purpose.

I have helped attorneys and their clients across the country file for termination of federal supervised release. If you or someone you know needs help preparing a strong early termination request, contact me for a free case evaluation.