Opinion
CR 21-00122-WES
07-11-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DEESHAWN GADSON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
LINCOLN D. ALMOND, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This matter has been referred to me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 3401(i) for proposed findings of fact concerning whether Defendant is in violation of the terms of his supervised release and, if so, to recommend a disposition of this matter. In compliance with that directive and in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1, a revocation hearing was held on June 3, 2024, at which time Defendant, through counsel and personally, admitted that he was in violation of his supervised release conditions. At the hearing, I ordered Defendant released pending my Report and Recommendation and final sentencing before District Judge William E. Smith.
Background
On January 11, 2024, the Probation Office petitioned the Court for the issuance of an arrest warrant. On that day, the District Court reviewed the request and ordered the issuance of a warrant. On June 3, 2024, Defendant was brought before the Court for a revocation hearing at which time he admitted to the following charge:
Violation No. 1. Mandatory Condition: Defendant must not commit another federal, state, or local crime.
On June 19, 2023, Defendant committed the misdemeanor offense of Simple Assault and/or Battery as evidenced by charges filed in Providence Superior Court Case Number P2-23-4072D.
As Defendant has admitted this charge, I find he is in violation of the terms and conditions of his supervised release.
At the June 3, 2024 hearing, the Government made an oral motion to amend the Violation Petition to dismiss the following charges with prejudice as follows:
Violation No. 1. Mandatory Condition: Defendant must not commit another federal, state, or local crime.
On June 19, 2023, Defendant committed the following offenses: (1) Felony Assault and/or Battery; (2) Felony Assault and/or Battery; (3) Conspiracy - Felony Greater Than 5 to 10 Years; (4) Conspiracy - Felony Greater Than 5 to 10 Years; (5) Conspiracy - Felony Greater Than 5 to 10 Years; and (6) Conspiracy - Felony Greater Than 5 to 10 Years, as evidenced by charges filed in Providence Superior Court Case Number P2/23-4072D.The Government's oral motion to dismiss these violation charges with prejudice was GRANTED.
Recommended Disposition
Section 3583(e)(2) provides that if the Court finds that Defendant violated a condition of supervised release, the Court may extend the term of supervised release if less than the maximum term was previously imposed. The maximum term of supervised release was previously imposed; therefore, the term cannot be extended.
Section 3583(e)(3), provides that 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 finds by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has violated a condition of supervised release, except that a defendant whose term is revoked under this paragraph may not be sentenced to a term beyond 5 years if the instant offense was a Class A felony, 3 years for a Class B felony, 2 years for a Class C or D felony, or more than one year for a Class E felony or a misdemeanor. Defendant was on supervision for a Class C felony. Therefore, he may not be required to serve more than two-years' imprisonment upon revocation.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) and § 7B1.3(g)(2), when a term of supervised release is revoked and the defendant is required to serve a term of imprisonment that is less than the maximum term of imprisonment authorized, 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 statutory maximum term of supervised release is three years. The Court may impose the above-noted statutory maximum, minus the term of imprisonment that is to be imposed for this revocation.
Section 7B1.1 provides for three grades of violations (A, B, and C). Subsection (b) states that where there is more than one violation, or the violation includes more than one offense, the grade of violation is determined by the violation having the most serious grade.
Section 7B1.1(a) notes that a Grade A violation constitutes conduct (A) which is punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year that (i) is a crime of violence; (ii) is a controlled substance offense; or (iii) involves possession of a firearm or destructive device of a type described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) or any other offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding twenty years. Grade B violations are conduct constituting any other offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. Grade C violations are conduct constituting an offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of one year or less; or a violation of any other condition of supervision.
Section 7B1.3(a)(1) states that upon a finding of a Grade A or B violation, the Court shall revoke supervision. Subsection (a)(2) provides that upon a finding of a Grade C violation, the court may revoke, extend, or modify the conditions of supervision. Defendant has committed a Grade C violation. Therefore, the Court may revoke, extend, or modify the conditions of supervision.
Section 7B1.3(c)(1) provides that where the minimum term of imprisonment determined under § 7B1.4 is at least one month, but not more than six 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 § 5C1.1(e) for any portion of the minimum term. Should the Court find that Defendant has committed a Grade B or C violation, § 7B1.3(c)(2) states that where the minimum term of imprisonment determined under § 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 §5C1.1(e), provided that at least one-half of the minimum term is satisfied by imprisonment. Neither provision applies to this matter.
Section 7B1.3(d) states that any restitution, fine, community confinement, home detention, or intermittent confinement previously imposed in connection with the 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 § 7B1.4 (Term of Imprisonment), and any such unserved period of confinement or detention may be converted to an equivalent period of imprisonment. Defendant owes $7,170.00 in restitution and a $75.00 special assessment.
Section 7B1.4(a) provides that the criminal history category is the category applicable at the time Defendant was originally sentenced. Defendant had a Criminal History Category of IV at the time of sentencing.
Should the Court revoke supervised release, the Revocation Table provided for in § 7B1.4(a) provides the applicable imprisonment range. Defendant committed a Grade C violation and has a Criminal History Category of IV. Therefore, the applicable guideline range of imprisonment for this violation is six to twelve months.
Section 7B1.5(b) provides that, upon revocation of supervised release, no credit shall be given toward any term of imprisonment ordered, for time previously served on post-release supervision.
Analysis and Recommendation
Defendant participated in a late-night, chaotic melee on June 19, 2023. The parties dispute whether Defendant was an instigator of the violence. However, the video evidence of the melee submitted in connection with a revocation trial held in United States v. Keishon Brown, CR No. 22-0003-JJM, clearly shows, at a minimum, that Defendant as a willing participant in the fight and that he physically assaulted others. He has admitted that the Government could prove in this violation case that he committed the misdemeanor offense of simple assault and battery. It is a Grade C violation, and the guideline range is six to twelve months.
The Government argues for a low-end, six-month jail sentence, while the defense counters that a non-jail disposition is warranted by the facts. First, the Court finds this case distinguishable from that of Mr. Brown who was charged in connection with the same melee. (CR No. 22-0003-JJM). Mr. Brown received a six-month sentence but, unlike this Defendant, he did not admit and accept responsibility, he was already the subject of a pending supervised release violation charge at the time of the melee, and he was also found guilty of resisting a lawful arrest during the June 19, 2023 incident. Thus, the Court does not believe that Mr. Brown's sentence dictates the same outcome here.
Defendant here has been on a curfew with electronic monitoring for nearly six months and has been compliant. He has been steadily employed during that time and has been supportive of his family. On balance, I believe that a non-jail sanction is warranted and that the lengthy time spent by Defendant under curfew constitutes part of that sanction. I also believe that a six-month extension of supervised release to ensure Defendant stays on a more positive trajectory is warranted. If Defendant has any instances of material noncompliance with his supervised release conditions prior to final sentencing, I reserve the right to amend my recommendation to a three-month jail sentence.
I recommend that the curfew and electronic monitoring be terminated at the time of final sentencing before District Judge Smith (assuming Defendant is in good standing as to his supervised release obligations at the time).
Conclusion
After considering the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), I recommend that Defendant's term of supervised release be extended by an additional six months to June 8, 2026 with all of his existing conditions.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be specific and must be served and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days of service of this Report and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b); DRI LR Cr 57.2(d). Failure to file specific objections in a timely manner constitutes waiver of the right to review by the District Judge and the right to appeal the Court's decision. See United States v. Lugo Guerrero, 524 F.3d 5, 14 (1st Cir. 2008).