United States v. Tradon Drayton

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 3, 2023
• Docket: 23-6527
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6527 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6527

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRADON MARQUEZ DRAYTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:21-cr-00372-BHH-1)

Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tradon Marquez Drayton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6527 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Tradon Marquez Drayton appeals the district court’s text order denying his pro se

motion for early termination of Drayton’s five-year term of supervised release. In his

motion, ∗ which was filed in May 2023, Drayton argued that this relief was appropriate

because he had paid his court fines; complied with the terms and conditions of his

supervised release for nearly two years; completed rehabilitation and educational

programs; was consistently employed; maintained a good relationship with his probation

officer; and had strong family ties. Drayton further averred that being on supervised release

precluded him from accompanying his family on a cruise to the Bahamas. The district

court summarily denied the motion in a text order.

“We review a district court’s decision whether to terminate an individual’s term of

supervised release before the expiration of the term under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) under the

narrow abuse of discretion standard.” United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th

Cir. 1999). “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally,

fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies

on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v.

Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

∗ Although Drayton cited 18 U.S.C. § 3564(c), which allows for early termination of a probationary term, Drayton’s motion should have been construed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), which authorizes a district court to terminate a supervised release term prior to completion.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6527 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), after a defendant has served one year of

supervised release, a district court may terminate the remaining term after considering

certain 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, if the court “is satisfied that such action is warranted

by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.” The statute specifically

identifies which of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors that the district court should consider.

See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e), 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), (a)(4)-(7).

In this case, though, nothing in the district court’s text order reflects consideration

of any of the aforementioned factors. Accordingly, the court’s ruling on Drayton’s motion

is not amenable to meaningful appellate review. We therefore vacate the district court’s

order denying Drayton’s motion and remand for further proceedings. Accord United States

v. Sheppard, 17 F.4th 449, 456 (3d Cir. 2021) (recognizing that, while district courts have

much discretion in deciding an early termination motion and can satisfy the statute by

“includ[ing] a statement that it considered the § 3553(a) factors in its analysis,” it is not

permissible for a court to deny such a motion “without any indication in its order that it

applied the proper legal standard”). We express no view on the merits of Drayton’s motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

VACATED AND REMANDED