Opinion
CASE NUMBER 1:08-CR-142
06-13-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CURTIS WAYNE ADAMS
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION FOR WARRANT FOR OFFENDER UNDER SUPERVISION
Pending is a "Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision" filed October 16, 2017, alleging that the Defendant, Curtis Wayne Adams, violated his conditions of supervised release. This matter is referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for review, hearing, and submission of a report with recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. See United States v. Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 919, 920 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3401(i) (2000); E.D. TEX. CRIM. R. CR-59.
I. The Original Conviction and Sentence
Curtis Wayne Adams was sentenced on July 13, 2009, before The Honorable Ron Clark, of the Eastern District of Texas, after pleading guilty to the offense of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, a Class B felony. This offense carried a statutory maximum imprisonment term of 40 years. The guideline imprisonment range, based on a total offense level of 21 and a criminal history category of VI, was 60 to 71 months. Curtis Wayne Adams was subsequently sentenced to 71 months' imprisonment followed by a 5 year term of supervised release subject to the standard conditions of release, plus special conditions to include drug aftercare, financial disclosure, and a $100 fine.
II. The Period of Supervision
On December 2, 2015, Curtis Wayne Adams completed his period of imprisonment and began service of the supervision term.
On September 22, 2017, conditions were modified to include a requirement that the Defendant shall reside in and participate in the community corrections component of a Community Corrections Center, as instructed, until successfully discharged by the center director, but no longer than 180 days from admission.
III. The Petition
United States Probation filed the Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision raising three allegations. The petition alleges that Curtis Wayne Adams violated the following conditions of release:
Allegation 1. The Defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime.
Allegation 2. The Defendant shall not illegally possess a controlled substance.
Allegation 3. The Defendant shall reside in a residential reentry center or similar facility, in a community corrections component, for a period of 180 days from admission until successfully discharged by the center director. You shall abide by the rules and regulations of the center, and pay subsistence according to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons' guidelines.
IV. Proceedings
On June 12, 2019, the undersigned convened a hearing pursuant to Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to hear evidence and arguments on whether the Defendant violated conditions of supervised release, and the appropriate course of action for any such violations.
At the revocation hearing, counsel for the Government and the Defendant announced an agreement as to a recommended disposition regarding the revocation. The Defendant agreed to plead "true" to the first allegation that claimed he failed to refrain from committing another crime. In return, the parties agreed that he should serve a term of 15 months' imprisonment, which shall include 179 days' unserved community confinement, with no supervised release to follow.
V. Principles of Analysis
According to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), the court may revoke a term of supervised release and require the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in such term of supervised release without credit for time previously served on post-release supervision, if the court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to revocation of probation or supervised release, finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release, except that a defendant whose term is revoked under this paragraph may not be required to serve on any such revocation more than five years in prison if the offense that resulted in the term of supervised release is a Class A felony, more than three years if such offense is a Class B felony, more than two years in prison if such offense is a Class C or D felony, or more than one year in any other case. The original offense of conviction was a Class B felony, therefore, the maximum imprisonment sentence is 3 years.
According to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a), if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant violated conditions of supervision by failing to refrain from committing another crime, the Defendant will be guilty of committing a Grade B violation. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(2) indicates that upon a finding of a Grade B violation, the court may (A) revoke probation or supervised release; or (B) extend the term of probation or supervised release and/or modify the conditions of supervision.
All of the policy statements in Chapter 7 that govern sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release are non-binding. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 7 Pt. A; United States v. Price, 519 F. App'x 560, 562 (11th Cir. 2013). --------
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a) provides that in the case of revocation of supervised release based on a Grade B violation and a criminal history category of VI, the policy statement imprisonment range is 12 to 18 months.
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(c)(3) indicates in the case of a revocation based, at least in part, on a violation of a condition specifically pertaining to community confinement, intermittent confinement, or home detention, use of the same or a less restrictive sanction is not recommended.
According to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(d), any restitution, fine, community confinement, home detention, or intermittent confinement previously imposed in connection with a sentence for which revocation is ordered that remains unpaid or unserved at the time of revocation shall be ordered to be paid or served in addition to the sanction determined under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 and any such unserved period of community confinement, home detention, or intermittent confinement may be converted to an equivalent period of imprisonment.
According to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of probation or supervised release shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving, whether or not the sentence of imprisonment being served resulted from the conduct that is the basis of the revocation of probation or supervised release. The Defendant's agreed upon revocation sentence shall run consecutively to the sentence he is serving in cause number 23326 in Hardin County, Texas, as well as the sentence he is serving in cause number 1:18-CR-56 in the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division.
In determining the Defendant's sentence, the court shall consider:
1. The nature and circumstance of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1);18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e) and 3553(a).
2. The need for the sentence imposed: to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and to provide the Defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, other corrective treatment in the most effective manner; see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553 (a)(2)(B)-(D);
3. Applicable guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, for the appropriate application of the provisions when modifying or revoking supervised release pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(3), that are in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; see 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(4); see also 28 U.S.C. § 924(A)(3);
4. Any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(2), that is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5); and
5. The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).
6. The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
VI. Application
The Defendant pled "true" to the petition's allegation that he violated a mandatory condition of release that he failed to refrain from committing another crime. Based upon the Defendant's plea of "true" to this allegation of the Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision and U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a), the undersigned finds that the Defendant violated a condition of supervised release.
The undersigned has carefully considered each of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The Defendant's violation is a Grade B violation, and the criminal history category is VI. The policy statement range in the Guidelines Manual is 12 to 18 months. The Defendant did not comply with the conditions of supervision and has demonstrated an unwillingness to adhere to conditions of supervision.
Consequently, incarceration appropriately addresses the Defendant's violation. The sentencing objectives of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation along with the aforementioned statutory sentencing factors will best be served by a prison sentence of 15 months (which includes 179 days of unserved community confinement converted to an equivalent term of imprisonment), with no term of supervised release to follow.
VII. Recommendations
The court should find that the Defendant violated the allegation in the petition that he violated a mandatory condition of release by failing to refrain from committing another crime. The petition should be granted and the Defendant's supervised release should be revoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583. The Defendant should be sentenced to a term of 15 months' imprisonment (which includes 179 days' unserved community confinement converted to an equivalent term of imprisonment), with no term of supervised release to follow. This sentence shall run consecutively to the Defendant's sentence in State of Texas v. Curtis Adams, Cause No. 23326 in Hardin County, Texas, as well as the sentence he is serving in United States v. Curtis Adams, Cause No. 1:18-CR-56 in the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division. The Defendant requested to serve his prison term at the Federal Correctional Institution in Three Rivers, Texas. The Defendant's request should be accommodated, if possible.
VIII. Objections
At the close of the revocation hearing, the Defendant, defense counsel, and counsel for the government each signed a standard form waiving their right to object to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report, consenting to revocation of supervised release, and consenting to the imposition of the above sentence recommended in this report (involving all conditions of supervised release, if applicable). The Defendant also waived his right to be present and speak and have his counsel present and speak before the district court imposes the recommended sentence. Therefore, the court may act on this report and recommendation immediately.
SIGNED this 13th day of June, 2019.
/s/_________
Zack Hawthorn
United States Magistrate Judge