USCA11 Case: 21-14151 Date Filed: 08/30/2022 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-14151 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

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 D.C. Docket No. 4:06-cr-00010-WMR-WEJ-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-14151 Date Filed: 08/30/2022 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 21-14151

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LUCK and LAGOA, Cir- cuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Johnny Brett Gregory, a former federal prisoner, appeals pro se the sua sponte denial of his motion to terminate his five-year term of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). We affirm. We review the denial of a motion to terminate a term of su- pervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Johnson, 877 F.3d 993, 997 (11th Cir. 2017). “A district court abuses its dis- cretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 942 F.3d 1259, 1267 (11th Cir. 2019)). “When review is only for abuse of dis- cretion, it means that the district court had a ‘range of choice’ and that we cannot reverse just because we might have come to a dif- ferent conclusion had it been our call to make.” Id. at 912. A district court may “terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant released at any time after expiration of one year of supervised release . . . if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the inter- est of justice[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); see Johnson, 877 F.3d at 996. The district court must consider several statutory sentencing fac- tors, including the nature and circumstances of the defendant’s USCA11 Case: 21-14151 Date Filed: 08/30/2022 Page: 3 of 3

21-14151 Opinion of the Court 3

offense; his history and characteristics; and the need to deter him and to protect the public from future similar crimes and to educate or provide him treatment. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(1). The dis- trict court must consider, but is not required to discuss, each of the several factors. Johnson, 877 F.3d at 997. “The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gregory’s motion. It lauded Gregory’s compliance with the terms of his supervised release and self-improvement. But after consider- ing the sentencing factors, the district court reasonably determined that terminating Gregory’s supervised release four years early would undermine “the important deterrent effect his [mandatory minimum] sentence [for his serious drug-related crimes] was in- tended to serve.” We AFFIRM the denial of Gregory’s motion to terminate his term of supervised release.