United States v. Lai

S.D. New York

United States v. Lai

458 F. Supp. 2d 177, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78486, 2006 WL 3057383

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedOctober 27, 2006

Docket99 CR. 1272

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 458 F. Supp. 2d 177 (United States v. Lai) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Lai, 458 F. Supp. 2d 177, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78486, 2006 WL 3057383 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER

MARRERO, District Judge.

By letter dated October 10, 2006, defendant Peter Lai (“Lai”) has applied to the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Cr. P. 32.1(c), to terminate his three-year term of supervised release, which commenced upon Lai’s release on December 28, 2004 from a 30-month sentence of incarceration for fraud in foreign currency trading. Thus, Lai has approximately 14 months remaining of supervised release on his sentence. As grounds for this request, Lai points to evidence he asserts demonstrates exceptionally good behavior or other circumstances warranting relief, including that he is now 70 years old and in failing health, and that he wishes to return to family in Taiwan. The Government has opposed Lai’s request. Upon consideration of the application and the Government’s response, the Court denies the application.

The Court is not persuaded that the circumstances Lai describes are sufficient to meet the standard articulated by the Second Circuit in United States v. Lussier to justify modification or termination of supervised release. See 104 F.3d 32, 35 (2d Cir.1997) (noting that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) “requires the court to consider general punishment issues ... when it decides to ‘modify, reduce, or enlarge’ the term or conditions of supervised released.”) Here, the Court considers that Lai was convicted of fraud involving 150 victims and a loss in excess of $2 million, of which, as the Government points out, Lai has paid only a nominal amount (approximately $10,330) in restitution.

Because the denial of this application does not unfavorably modify his existing terms of supervised release, Lai is not entitled to a hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Cr. P. 321(c).

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DECISION AND ORDER

MARRERO, District Judge.

By letter dated October 10, 2006, defendant Peter Lai (“Lai”) has applied to the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Cr. P. 32.1(c), to terminate his three-year term of supervised release, which commenced upon Lai’s release on December 28, 2004 from a 30-month sentence of incarceration for fraud in foreign currency trading. Thus, Lai has approximately 14 months remaining of supervised release on his sentence. As grounds for this request, Lai points to evidence he asserts demonstrates exceptionally good behavior or other circumstances warranting relief, including that he is now 70 years old and in failing health, and that he wishes to return to family in Taiwan. The Government has opposed Lai’s request. Upon consideration of the application and the Government’s response, the Court denies the application.

The Court is not persuaded that the circumstances Lai describes are sufficient to meet the standard articulated by the Second Circuit in United States v. Lussier to justify modification or termination of supervised release. See 104 F.3d 32, 35 (2d Cir.1997) (noting that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) “requires the court to consider general punishment issues ... when it decides to ‘modify, reduce, or enlarge’ the term or conditions of supervised released.”) Here, the Court considers that Lai was convicted of fraud involving 150 victims and a loss in excess of $2 million, of which, as the Government points out, Lai has paid only a nominal amount (approximately $10,330) in restitution.

Because the denial of this application does not unfavorably modify his existing terms of supervised release, Lai is not entitled to a hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Cr. P. 321(c).

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 F. Supp. 2d 177, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78486, 2006 WL 3057383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lai-nysd-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack