Opinion
CR 10-00126-WES
04-04-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMEEL Z. GREENE
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 April 2, 2024, at which time Defendant, through counsel and personally, admitted that he was in violation of his supervised release conditions as charged. At this hearing, I ordered Defendant detained pending my Report and Recommendation and final sentencing before District Judge William E. Smith.
Background
On April 1, 2024, the Probation Office petitioned the Court for the issuance of an arrest warrant. On that date, the District Court reviewed the request and ordered the issuance of an arrest warrant. Defendant was brought before the Court for a revocation hearing on April 2, 2024 at which time he admitted to the following violations:
Violation No. 1. Mandatory Condition: Defendant must not commit another federal, state, or local crime.
On July 17, 2023, Defendant committed the offense of Simple Assault and/or Battery, as evidenced by his arrest on July 20, 2023.
Violation No. 2. Mandatory Condition: Defendant must not commit another federal, state, or local crime.
On July 20, 2023, Defendant committed the offense of Driving Without a License, as evidenced by his arrest on July 20, 2023.
Violation No. 3. Mandatory Condition: Defendant must not commit another federal, state, or local crime.
On July 17, 2023, Defendant committed the offense of Trafficking Crack Cocaine, as evidenced by his own admission on July 21, 2023.
As Defendant has admitted these charges, I find he is in violation of the terms and conditions of his supervised release.
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 not previously imposed; therefore, the term can 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 or 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 1 year for a Class E felony or a misdemeanor. If a term of imprisonment was imposed as a result of a previous supervised release revocation, that term of imprisonment must be subtracted from the above-stated maximums to arrive at the current remaining statutory maximum sentence. 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 and his previous 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 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; 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 A violation. Therefore, the Court shall revoke 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 of these provisions apply 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. There is no outstanding restitution, fine, community confinement, home detention, or intermittent confinement.
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 VI 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 A violation and has a Criminal History Category of VI. Therefore, the applicable range of imprisonment for this violation is thirty-three to forty-one months, restricted by statute to twenty-four 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
This is Defendant's second violation case. Defendant's term of supervised release has been plagued by poor decision making and dangerous behavior, and he has already served an eightmonth violation sentence.
Defendant admitted to leaving the scene of a traffic stop and eluding police at high speed in his first violation case. A firearm was ultimately seized from the car, but possession was attributed to a passenger and not Defendant.
This violation case was initiated after Defendant was arrested on a rape charge on July 20, 2023. The state grand jury ultimately decided that there was insufficient evidence to support the rape charge. Instead, Defendant was charged with misdemeanor assault and battery. However, the incident also resulted in a charge that Defendant was driving without a valid driver's license (a charge he also faced in 2021) and an admission to law enforcement that he was selling crack cocaine at the time he encountered the alleged rape victim. He also admitted that he arranged a transaction with her that involved the exchange of crack cocaine for sexual favors. Further,
Defendant admitted that the alleged victim offered to pay him cash for additional crack cocaine if he drove her to meet one of her prostitution customers.
Defendant has admitted to a Grade A violation in this case. The guideline range is thirty-three to forty-one months (capped by statute at twenty-four months). The Government argues for an eighteen-month sentence. Defendant advocates for twelve months and one day. Both sides agree that further supervised release would not be productive at this point. Defendant has been held since his arrest on July 20, 2023, and this Court issued a warrant on July 21, 2023 that was lodged as a detainer. On balance, I conclude that a sentence of fifteen months retroactive to the July 21, 2023 date the federal detainer was lodged is reasonable given Defendant's history and his admitted involvement in street-level drug dealing while under Court supervision. I also concur that further supervised release in this 2010 case would be unproductive at this point.
Conclusion
After considering the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), I recommend that Defendant be sentenced to fifteen months' incarceration followed by no further supervised release.
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).