Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 5:09-cr-140-GFVT
08-01-2024
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
EDWARD B. ATKINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On August 23, 2010, Alex Williams was sentenced to 140 months of imprisonment followed by six years of supervised release, after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone following a previous drug felony conviction, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. His sentence was reduced on April 7, 2016, to a term of 132 months of imprisonment. On January 14, 2020, he was transferred to the custody of the Kentucky Department of Corrections from the Bureau of Prisons to begin service of a term of imprisonment for a probation violation. He was released from his state confinement on March 1, 2024, and began his six-year term of federal supervision.
Barely three months later, he was arrested and charged with violating federal supervision due to possessing and using methamphetamine on June 13, 2024. He appeared for a final hearing before the undersigned, where he admitted to possessing and using methamphetamine, therefore violating the following conditions of supervision:
Violation #1
Mandatory Condition #2: You must not commit another federal, state or local crime. In this case, Williams' admission to using and possessing methamphetamine evidences a violation of the law, as use is equal to possession, and simple possession of methamphetamine constitutes a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(b), punishable by a term of imprisonment not to exceed two years (a Class E felony). This conduct constitutes a Grade B violation.
Violation #2
Mandatory Condition #3: The defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled substance. The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. The defendant shall 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. In this case, Williams' admission of possessing methamphetamine, a controlled substance, constitutes a Grade C Violation of his supervision.
Should the Court revoke his supervised release, the recommended period of imprisonment based on a Grade B Violation and a criminal history category of VI is a period of imprisonment between 21 to 27 months. The original offense in this case is a Class B felony, so the maximum authorized term of imprisonment is not more than 36 months, with no maximum term of supervised release to follow.
RECOMMENDED SENTENCE
I.
In determining the appropriate sentence in this case, the Court looks to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), for guidance in recommending a sentence, properly calculated and imposed.
The statute provides:
The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The Court, in determining the sentence to be imposed, shall consider B
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed B
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
(3) the kinds of sentences available;
(4) the kinds of sentences and the sentencing ranges established...
(5) any pertinent policy statement...
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and
(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.18 U.S.C. 3553(a).
II.
In considering the nature and circumstances of the instant offenses and the Defendant's history and characteristics, the court finds the following particularly relevant.
The Defendant was born on December 6, 1973, and is now 50 years of age. He reported being raised in a stable home but was subject to some abuse by his father. He lived in the home until he was 18, then moved from Breathitt County, Kentucky to Nashville, Tennessee. He attended a school where he was trained in diesel mechanics. His employment has been sporadic at best, moving between Florida and Kentucky. He relates a history of substance abuse going back to age 9 with a history of an overdose at age 13, and a history of addiction to prescription pain medication (oxycodone). Williams was previously married, a relationship that produced one child but ended in divorce.
Finally, he was incarcerated in the Kentucky Department of Corrections from 2003 to 2008, and it should be noted that the conduct underlying his federal conviction in this case began in late 2008 and continued through May 19, 2009. In this case, he was ultimately sentenced to serve 132 months, and was just released to supervision on March 1, 2024. The present violation conduct occurred three months later, on June 13, 2024. He has a criminal history category of VI due to a variety of prior convictions for using or and/or possessing marijuana/controlled substances, failing to appear in court, violating probation and parole, and theft and burglary.
III.
The Court now turns to consideration of the next factors: the need for the sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a):
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
In fashioning a recommendation in the case, the undersigned considers all of the information above, that contained in his presentence investigation report, the information offered at the final hearing, Williams' longstanding drug use and behavior, and the nature and circumstances of his current violations. Finally, the undersigned considers his past criminal history and his criminal history category VI.
Simply, there is nothing about the defendant's personal and criminal history, or the facts of his violation conduct, that should lead the Court to impose a sentence below the low end of the recommended guidelines. Therefore, for the reasons outlined above and to satisfy the considerations of the controlling statute, the undersigned believes that revocation of supervision with a period of imprisonment, upon the condition that upon release he resume his unexpired period of supervision should be imposed.
CONCLUSION
As previously stated, that facts upon which the Court recommends finding that the Defendant committed the charged violations has been established by his own admission, and therefore has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, IT IS RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the Defendant be found guilty of Violations 1 and 2;
(2) That upon motion of the United States, Violation 3 should be DISMISSED;
(3) That his supervision be REVOKED;
(4) That the Defendant be sentenced to a term of 21 months incarceration. Upon release from incarceration, Williams should be directed to resume his unexpired period of supervision.
(5) That upon a waiver filed into the record WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS evidencing a knowing, intelligent and voluntary relinquishment of his right of allocution in this action, his supervision should be revoked, and he be sentenced: OR
(6) If Williams desires to exercise his right of allocution, counsel should file notice into the record of that desire and the matter should be scheduled for a final hearing before Judge Van Tatenhove for purposes of allocution and sentencing.
Specific objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within FOURTEEN (14) days from the date of service thereof or further appeal is waived. United States v. Campbell, 261 F.3d 628, 632 (6th Cir. 2001); Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Combs Contracting Inc., 236 F.Supp.2d 737, 749B50 (E.D. Ky. 2002). General objections or objections that require a judge's interpretation are insufficient to preserve the right to appeal. Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). A party may file a response to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).