After Luis Rodriguez had served a portion of the supervised-release term im *658 posed as part of his sentence for a federal bank-robbery offense, he moved for early termination of supervised release, arguing that he had adjusted well to supervision, had completed all required programs, and had met all rules and regulations. The district court 1 denied the motion, and this appeal followed. After careful review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Rodriguez’s pro se brief, we affirm.

In the proceedings below, both the government and the probation officer who was supervising Rodriguez opposed early termination. The probation officer, in particular, noted in his written report to the court that Rodriguez had failed to make several payments toward the large restitution obligation that was part of his criminal sentence and incorporated in his supervised-release conditions. Noting that it had considered the record and the parties’ arguments, the court stated that it had decided to deny early termination, in part because the court believed that supervised release would provide Rodriguez with more time and structure to meet his restitution obligation. In these circumstances, we see no abuse of discretion in the denial of early termination. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); United States v. Lowe, 632 F.3d 996, 997-98 (7th Cir. 2011) (denial of motion for early termination of supervised release is reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel leave to withdraw.