Opinion
9:20-CR-35
11-05-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JADELFRICK LUMON BENTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION FOR WARRANT FOR OFFENDER UNDER SUPERVISION
Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge
Pending is a “Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision” filed August 19, 2024, alleging that the Defendant, Jadelfrick Lumon Benton, 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
Benton was sentenced on February 24, 2021, before The Honorable Ron Clark of the Eastern District of Texas after pleading guilty to the offense of Possession Of A Firearm By A Prohibited Person, a Class C felony. This offense carried a statutory maximum imprisonment term of 10 years. The guideline imprisonment range, based on a total offense level of 19 and a criminal history category of V, was 57 to 71 months. Pursuant to a binding plea agreement, Benton was subsequently sentenced to 42 months' imprisonment, which was below the guideline range, followed by 3 years of supervised release subject to the standard conditions of release, plus special conditions to include drug testing and treatment.
II. The Period of Supervision
On June 30, 2023, Benton completed his period of imprisonment and began service of the supervision term. On January 8, 2024, the instant case was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Marcia A. Crone.
III. The Petition
United States Probation filed the Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision raising seven allegations. The petition alleges that Benton violated the following conditions of release:
Allegation 1. The Defendant shall refrain from the unlawful use of a controlled substance.
Allegation 2. The Defendant must not leave the federal judicial district where he is authorized to reside without permission from his probation officer.
Allegation 3. The Defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer.
Allegation 4. The Defendant shall live at a place approved by his probation officer and notify the probation officer ten days prior to any change of residence or employment. If notifying the probation officer in advance is not possible due to unanticipated circumstances, he must notify the probation officer within 72 hours of becoming aware of a change or expected change.
Allegation 5. The Defendant must work full time (at least 30 hours per week) at a lawful type of employment and keep the probation officer advised of any changes.
Allegation 6. The Defendant shall pay to the United States a special assessment of $100 for Count 1, which is due immediately.
Allegation 7. The Defendant shall participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug abuse, as directed by the probation officer, until such time as the defendant is released from the program by the probation officer.
IV. Proceedings
On November 4, 2024, 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 second allegation that claimed he left the judicial district without permission from the court or his probation officer. In return, the parties agreed that he should serve a term of six months' imprisonment, with 18 months of 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 C felony, therefore, the maximum imprisonment sentence is 2 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 leaving the judicial district where he is authorized to reside without permission from the court or probation officer, the Defendant will be guilty of committing a Grade C violation. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(2) indicates that upon a finding of a Grade C 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 Fed.Appx. 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 C violation and a criminal history category of V, the policy statement imprisonment range is 7 to 13 months.
According to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(c)(2), where the minimum term of imprisonment determined under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 is more than six months but not more than ten months, the minimum term may be satisfied by (A) a sentence of imprisonment; or (B) a sentence of imprisonment that includes a term of supervised release with a condition that substitutes community confinement or home detention according to the schedule in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(e), provided that at least one-half of the minimum term is satisfied by imprisonment.
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 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), when a term of supervised release is revoked and the defendant is required to serve a term of imprisonment, the court may include a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment. The length of such a term of supervised release shall not exceed the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the original term of supervised release, less any term of imprisonment that was imposed upon revocation of supervised release. The authorized term of supervised release for this offense is not more than 3 years.
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(g)(2) indicates where supervised release is revoked and the term of imprisonment imposed is less than the maximum term of imprisonment imposable upon revocation, the court may include a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release upon release from imprisonment. The length of such a term of supervised release shall not exceed the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the original term of supervised release, less any term of imprisonment that was imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
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);
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.18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e) and 3553(a).
VI. Application
The Defendant pled “true” to the petition's allegation that he violated a standard condition of release by leaving the judicial district where he is authorized to reside without permission from the court or probation officer. 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 C violation, and the criminal history category is V. The policy statement range in the Guidelines Manual is 7 to 13 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 six (6) months, with 18 months of supervised release to follow.
VII. Recommendations
The court should find that the Defendant violated the allegation in the petition that Benton violated a standard condition of release by leaving the judicial district where he is authorized to reside without permission from the court or probation officer. 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 six (6) months' imprisonment, with 18 months of supervised release to follow. The Defendant requested to serve his prison term at the Federal Correctional Institution in Seagoville, Texas. The Defendant's request should be accommodated, if possible.
As stated at the final revocation hearing, without objection, the same mandatory, standard and special conditions of supervised release previously imposed when the Defendant was originally sentenced in this case shall be re-imposed. Such conditions are set forth in the Judgment, and the rationale for these special conditions is contained in the Defendant's Presentence Investigation Report.
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.