Opinion
1:15-CR-54
07-22-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMES RODNEY BURNETT
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA OF TRUE BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KEITH F. GIBLIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the Local Rules for the District Court, Eastern District of Texas, the District Court referred this matter for hearing and the submission of findings of fact and a report and recommendation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3401(i) and 3583(e). The United States alleges that the defendant, James Rodney Burnett, violated conditions of supervised release imposed by United States District Judge Ron Clark. The United States Probation Office filed its Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision (doc. #43) requesting the revocation of the defendant's supervised release. The Court conducted a hearing on July 6, 2021, in accordance with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11, 32 and 32.1. The defendant was present and represented by counsel at the hearing. Having heard the evidence, this court factually finds that the defendant has violated conditions of supervision and recommends that such violation warrants the revocation of his supervised release.
After conducting the proceeding in the form and manner prescribed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure11 , the Court finds:
a. That the defendant, after consultation with counsel of record, has knowingly, freely, and voluntarily consented to the administration of the plea of true in this cause by a United States Magistrate Judge subject to a final approval and imposition of sentence by the District Court.
b. That the defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that the defendant is aware of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea, that his plea of true is a knowing and voluntary plea, not the result of force or threats, and that the plea is supported by an independent evidentiary basis in fact establishing each of the essential elements of the conduct.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
A. Procedural History
On September 29, 2015, The Honorable Ron Clark of the Eastern District of Texas sentenced the defendant after he pled guilty to the offense of Felon in Possession of a Firearm, a Class C felony. Judge Clark sentenced Mr. Burnett to 63 months imprisonment, to be followed by three (3) years of supervision subject to the standard conditions of release, plus special conditions to include financial disclosure, credit and gambling restrictions, drug aftercare, $100 special assessment, and $627.41 in restitution. On October 4, 2019, James Rodney Burnett completed his period of imprisonment and began service of the supervision term. On December 11, 2019, the case was reassigned to The Honorable Marcia A. Crone, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas.
On March 30, 2020, pursuant to the undersigned's recommendation, the District Court revoked Mr. Burnett's original term of supervision and sentenced him to six (6) months imprisonment, followed by two (2) years of supervised release. The new term of supervision was ordered subject to the standard conditions of release, reimposed special conditions, and a new special condition to include 120 days placement in a residential reentry center.
B. Allegations in Petition
The United States Probation Office alleges that the defendant violated the following standard condition of release:
“After initially reporting to the probation office, you will receive instructions from the court or the probation officer about how and when you must report to the probation officer, and you must report to the probation officer as instructed.”
Specifically, Mr. Burnett failed to submit a written monthly report form as instructed during the month of May 2021. Furthermore, on April 9, 2021, Mr. Burnett failed to report as instructed for a scheduled office visit at the U.S. Probation Office in Beaumont, Texas.
C. Evidence presented at Hearing:
At the hearing, the Government proffered evidence in support of the allegation in the petition to revoke. If the case proceeded to a contested hearing, the Government would submit proffered evidence indicating that in May 2021 Mr. Burnett failed to submit a written monthly report form as instructed. The Government would also establish that Mr. Burnett failed to report for a scheduled office visit at the United States Probation Office on April 9, 2021, as instructed.
Defendant, James Burnett, offered a plea of true to the allegations. Specifically, he agreed with the evidence summarized above and pled true to the allegation that he failed to report as instructed in violation of his supervision conditions.
D. Sentencing Guidelines; Findings and Recommended Disposition
The allegations, supporting evidence and plea of true warrant revocation of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The Court factually finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a standard condition of his supervised release by failing to report as instructed. This conduct constitutes a Grade C violation under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(1). Upon finding a Grade C violation, the Court may revoke the defendant's supervised release. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(2).
Based upon the Defendant's criminal history category of VI and the Grade C violation, the sentencing guidelines suggest a sentence of imprisonment for a period ranging from 8 to 14 months. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). Because the original offense of conviction was a Class C felony, the statutory maximum imprisonment term upon revocation is two (2) years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
The Fifth Circuit states that Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines regarding the revocation of supervised release is advisory only. See United States v. Cade, 279 F.3d 265, 271 n.2 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Montez, 952 F.2d 854, 859 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Headrick, 963 F.2d 777, 782 (5th Cir. 1992)). Because Chapter 7 was promulgated as an advisory policy statement and there are no applicable guidelines for sentencing after revocation of supervised release, the Court may impose a greater or lesser sentence upon revocation. United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925 (5th Cir. 2001). Further, a sentence imposed for revocation will be upheld unless it is in violation of the law or plainly unreasonable. Id. See also United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Ch. 7, pt. A, cmt. 1 (“At this time, the Commission has chosen to promulgate policy statements only.”)
Here, the evidence and the defendant's own admission supports a finding that the defendant committed a Grade C violation of his supervision conditions by using a controlled substance. Defendant pled true, agreed with the Court's recommended sentence for that violation, and waived his right to allocute before the District Court.
Accordingly, based upon the defendant's plea of true, the agreement of the parties, and the evidence presented in this case, it is the recommendation of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge that the District Court accept the plea of true and revoke Defendant's supervised release. The undersigned magistrate judge recommends that the District Court order Defendant, James Rodney Burnett, to serve a term of nine (9) months imprisonment, with no further supervised release to follow.
OBJECTIONS
Objections must be: (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party's failure to object bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district judge of proposed findings and recommendations, and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error of unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The constitutional safeguards afforded by Congress and the courts require that, when a party takes advantage of his right to object to a magistrate's findings or recommendation, a district judge must exercise its nondelegable authority by considering the actual evidence and not merely by reviewing and blindly adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See Hernandez v. Estelle, 711 F.2d 619, 620 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Elsoffer, 644 F.2d 357, 359 (5th Cir. 1981) (per curiam).