REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION FOR WARRANT FOR OFFENDER UNDER SUPERVISION
ZACK HAWTHORN, Magistrate Judge.
Pending is a "Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision" filed May 23, 2017, alleging that the Defendant, Jason Luke Welborn, violated his conditions of supervised release. This matter is referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for review, hearing, and submission of a report with recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. See United States v. Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 919, 920 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3401(i) (2000); Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
I. The Original Conviction and Sentence
Jason Luke Welborn was sentenced on November 1, 2004, before The Honorable Marcia A. Crone, of the Eastern District of Texas, after pleading guilty to the offense of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, a Class A felony. This offense carried a statutory maximum imprisonment term of life. The guideline imprisonment range, based on a total offense level of 28 and a criminal history category of III, was 120 to 121 months. Jason Luke Welborn was subsequently sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment followed by a 5 year term of supervised release subject to the standard conditions of release, plus special conditions to include: financial disclosure; drug aftercare; anger management; and no contact with co-defendants.
II. The Period of Supervision
On January 10, 2013, Jason Luke Welborn completed his period of imprisonment and began service of the supervision term. On January 31, 2017, conditions were modified to include that the Defendant shall reside in and participate in the community corrections component of a community corrections center, as instructed, until successfully discharged by the center director, but no longer than 180 days from admission.
III. The Petition
United States Probation filed the Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision raising two allegations. The petition alleges that Jason Luke Welborn violated the following conditions of release:
Allegation 1. The Defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. Defendant shall submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment or placement on probation and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter, as directed by the probation officer.
Allegation 2. The Defendant reside in and participate in the community corrections component of a community corrections center, as instructed, until successfully discharged by the center director, but no longer than 180 days from admission.
IV. Proceedings
On May 26, 2017, the undersigned convened a hearing pursuant to Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to hear evidence and arguments on whether the Defendant violated conditions of supervised release, and the appropriate course of action for any such violations.
At the revocation hearing, counsel for the Government and the Defendant announced an agreement as to a recommended disposition regarding the revocation. The Defendant agreed to plead "true" to the first allegation that claimed he submitted positive urine specimens on three occasions. In return, the parties agreed that he should serve a term of imprisonment of 8 months' imprisonment, which shall include 96 days' unserved community confinement, with no supervised release to follow.
V. Principles of Analysis
According to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), 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, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to revocation of probation or supervised release, finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release, except that a defendant whose term is revoked under this paragraph may not be required to serve on any such revocation more than five years in prison if the offense that resulted in the term of supervised release is a Class A felony, more than three years if such offense is a Class B felony, more than two years in prison if such offense is a Class C or D felony, or more than one year in any other case. The original offense of conviction was a Class A felony, therefore, the maximum imprisonment sentence is 5 years.
According to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)1, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant violated conditions of supervision by submitting positive urine specimens on three occasions, the Defendant will be guilty of committing a Grade C violation. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(2) indicates that upon a finding of a Grade C violation, the court may (A) revoke probation or supervised release; or (B) extend the term of probation or supervised release and/or modify the conditions of supervision.
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a) provides that in the case of revocation of supervised release based on a Grade C violation and a criminal history category of III, the policy statement imprisonment range is 5 to 11 months.
According to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(c)(1), where the minimum term of imprisonment determined under U.S.S.G. § 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 U.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(e), for any portion of the minimum term.
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(c)(3) indicates in the case of a revocation based, at least in part, on a violation of a condition specifically pertaining to community confinement, intermittent confinement, or home detention, use of the same or a less restrictive sanction is not recommended.
According to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(d), any restitution, fine, community confinement, home detention, or intermittent confinement previously imposed in connection with a 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 U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 and any such unserved period of community confinement, home detention, or intermittent confinement may be converted to an equivalent period of imprisonment.
In determining the Defendant's sentence, the court shall consider:
1. The nature and circumstance of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1);
2. The need for the sentence imposed: to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and to provide the Defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, other corrective treatment in the most effective manner; see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553 (a)(2)(B)-(D);
3. Applicable guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, for the appropriate application of the provisions when modifying or revoking supervised release pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(3), that are in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; see 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(4); see also 28 U.S.C. § 924(A)(3);
4. Any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(2), that is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5); and
5. The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).
6. The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e) and 3553(a).
VI. Application
The Defendant pled "true" to the petition's allegation that he violated a mandatory condition of release that he submitted positive urine specimens on three occasions. Based upon the Defendant's plea of "true" to this allegation of the Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision and U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a), the undersigned finds that the Defendant violated a condition of supervised release.
The undersigned has carefully considered each of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The Defendant's violation is a Grade C violation, and the criminal history category is III. The policy statement range in the Guidelines Manual is 5 to 11 months. The Defendant did not comply with the conditions of supervision and has demonstrated an unwillingness to adhere to conditions of supervision.
Consequently, incarceration appropriately addresses the Defendant's violation. The sentencing objectives of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation along with the aforementioned statutory sentencing factors will best be served by a prison sentence of 8 months, with no term of supervised release to follow (which includes 96 days of unserved community confinement converted to an equivalent term of imprisonment).
VII. Recommendations
The court should find that the Defendant violated the allegation in the petition that he violated a mandatory condition of release by submitting positive urine specimens for controlled substances on three occasions. The petition should be granted and the Defendant's supervised release should be revoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583. The Defendant should be sentenced to a term of 8 months' imprisonment, with no term of supervised release to follow (which includes 96 days' unserved community confinement converted to an equivalent term of imprisonment). The Defendant requested to serve his prison term at the Federal Correctional Institution in Beaumont. The Defendant's request should be accommodated, if possible.
VIII. Objections
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), each party to this action has the right to file objections to this report and recommendation. Objections to this report must: (1) be in writing, (2) specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, and (3) be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report, and (4) no more than eight (8) pages in length. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) (2009); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); Local Rule CV-72(c). A party who objects to this report is entitled to a de novo determination by the United States District Judge of those proposed findings and recommendations to which a specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2009); FED R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
A party's failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of this report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States District Judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States District Judge, see Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
