Opinion
CRIM. 4:13-CR-177-ALM-KPJ-1
08-24-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ERIC LEWIS SCOTT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KIMBERLY C. PRIEST JOHNSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the Government's request for revocation of Defendant Eric Lewis Scott's (“Defendant”) supervised release. After the District Court referred the matter to this Court for a report and recommendation, the Court conducted a hearing on August 21, 2023, to determine whether Defendant violated the conditions of his supervised release. See Minute Entry for August 21, 2023. Defendant was represented by Assistant Federal Public Defender Sarah Jacobs, and the Government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Glenn Roque-Jackson. See id.
On September 4, 2014, U.S. District Judge Richard A. Schell sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment of seventy-eight (78) months, followed by a term of supervised release of three (3) years, for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Felon in Possession of a Firearm). See Dkt. 40. On November 16, 2021, Defendant completed his term of imprisonment and began service of the supervision term. See Dkt. 63.
On March 16, 2022, the U.S. Probation Office filed the Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision (the “Petition”) (Dkt. 63). The Petition asserts Defendant violated the following conditions of supervision: (1) Defendant must not commit another federal, state or local crime; (2) Defendant must refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. Defendant must submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter, as determined by the court; (3) Defendant must work full time (at least 30 hours per week) at a lawful type of employment, unless the probation officer excuses you from doing so. If Defendant does not have full-time employment, Defendant must try to find full-time employment unless the probation officer excuses Defendant from doing so. If Defendant plans to change where Defendant works or anything about Defendant's work (such as Defendant's position or Defendant's job responsibilities), Defendant must notify the probation officer at least 10 days before the change. If notifying the probation officer at least 10 days in advance is not possible due to unanticipated circumstances, Defendant must notify the probation officer within 72 hours of becoming aware of a change or expected change; and (4) Defendant shall participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug abuse, under the guidance and direction of the United States Probation Office, until such time as Defendant is released from the program by the probation officer.
The Petition asserts Defendant violated the foregoing conditions as follows:
(1) On March 7, 2022, Defendant committed the offense of Failure to Appear (felony) in Bowie County, Texas.
(2) On January 3, 2022; January 26, 2022, and March 3, 2022, Defendant submitted urine samples that were positive for THC/marijuana.
(3) Defendant has been unemployed since his release from imprisonment on November 16, 2021.
(4) On December 6, 2021; December 29, 2021; January 6, 2022, and February 17, 2022, Defendant failed to appear for random drug testing at the probation office.See id.
At the hearing held on August 21, 2023, the Government moved to dismiss Allegation One, which the Court granted, and Defendant entered a plea of true to Allegations Two through Four, consented to revocation of his supervised release, and waived his right to object to the proposed findings and recommendations of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. See Minute Entry for August 21, 2023; Dkt. 75. The Court finds that Defendant violated the terms of his supervised release, and thus, his supervised release should be revoked.
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, and having considered the arguments presented at the August 21, 2023 hearing, the Court recommends that Defendant be committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of nine (9) months, with no supervised release to follow. The Court further recommends Defendant be placed at Federal Correctional Institute, Milan, located in the Eastern District of Michigan, if appropriate.
So ORDERED and SIGNED.