USCA4 Appeal: 22-6263 Doc: 77 Filed: 12/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6263

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER HARDY ZOUKIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00091-MR-WCM-1)

Argued: December 5, 2023 Decided: December 19, 2023

Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Jillian Marie Lesley, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Margaret Greenough, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Christopher R. Geel, GEEL LAW FIRM LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, Ranee Saunders, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6263 Doc: 77 Filed: 12/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Christopher Hardy Zoukis appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion for early termination of supervised release pursuant to

(e). Also

pending before the court is the Government’s motion to dismiss Appellant’s appeal. That

motion is denied.

On the merits, Appellant contends the district court abused its discretion when it

denied his motion for early termination of supervised release. Appellant pled guilty on

December 26, 2007 to one count of knowingly possessing child pornography in violation

of

(a)(4)(B) and 2252(b)(2) and one count of knowingly receiving child

pornography in violation of

(a)(2), (b)(1), and 2256(8)(A). He was

charged with these offenses while on state supervised probation for a prior felony

conviction, taking indecent liberties with a child. Appellant was sentenced on

September 4, 2008 to 151 months of imprisonment and six years of supervised release.

Appellant served his prison term, and his supervised release began on October 12,

2018. On March 17, 2021, Appellant moved for early termination of his supervised release

after having served approximately 30 of 72 months. Although the Government initially

lodged an objection to Appellant’s motion for early termination, it ultimately withdrew that

objection when Appellant passed a polygraph examination.

The district court denied Appellant’s motion on February 14, 2022. The court

determined Appellant’s request was unwarranted based upon Appellant’s conduct, the

interest of justice, and the relevant

(a) factors. See

(e)

(providing a court may terminate a term of supervised release “after the expiration of one

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6263 Doc: 77 Filed: 12/19/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

year of supervised release,” “after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1),

(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7),” when “warranted by the

conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice”). However, the district court

denied Appellant’s motion without prejudice and encouraged him to refile based on the

considerable efforts Appellant had made toward rehabilitation.

We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Pregent,

(4th Cir. 1999) (reviewing denial of early termination under § 3583(e)

for abuse of discretion). Appellant’s history and characteristics, the nature and

circumstances of his offenses, the need to protect the public, and the importance of

avoiding unwarranted sentence disparities weighed against early termination at this

juncture.

Therefore, the district court’s order denying without prejudice Appellant’s motion

for early termination of supervised release is

AFFIRMED.

3