1:04-cr-00122
E.D. Tex.Jan 30, 2017Background
- Defendant Daniel J. Redden previously convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine (Class B felony) and escape from federal custody (Class D felony); completed prison terms and began concurrent supervised release on January 15, 2016.
- Probation filed a petition (Dec. 7, 2016) alleging five violations of supervised release conditions, including illegal possession/use of a controlled substance and failure to notify/seek permission for travel or residence changes.
- At a Rule 32.1 revocation hearing, Redden admitted (pled “true”) to Allegation 2: illegal possession of a controlled substance.
- Guidelines classify this as a Grade B violation; with criminal history category VI, the advisory revocation range is 21–27 months; statutory maximums for revocation are 3 years (Class B) and 2 years (Class D).
- Parties agreed to a recommended disposition: two concurrent 21‑month terms of imprisonment with no supervised release to follow; Magistrate Judge Hawthorn recommended acceptance of that disposition and accommodation of Redden’s facility preference if possible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Redden violated supervised release by possessing a controlled substance | Probation: evidence supports a violation; plea of “true” to allegation | Redden: admitted the allegation (no contest to violation) | Violation found (Grade B) |
| Whether supervised release should be revoked | Probation: revocation appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 and U.S.S.G. Ch.7 | Redden: agreed to revocation and recommended disposition | Revocation recommended pursuant to § 3583(e) |
| Appropriate sanction and sentence length for the Grade B violation | Probation/Govt: guideline range 21–27 months; recommend 21 months concurrent, no supervised release to follow | Redden: agreed to 21 months concurrent, no supervised release; requested designation at FCI Coleman II | Recommended sentence: 21 months imprisonment, concurrent; no supervised release to follow |
| Whether to impose additional federal supervised release after incarceration | Probation: not necessary because defendant is on state parole until 2029 and state supervision is sufficient | Redden: agreed no additional federal supervision is necessary | Recommended: no further federal supervised release imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 919 (5th Cir. 1994) (procedures for magistrate consideration of supervised-release matters)
- United States v. Price, [citation="519 F. App'x 560"] (11th Cir. 2013) (Chapter 7 supervised-release policy statements are non-binding)
- Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1988) (failure to timely object to magistrate report waives de novo review)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural effects of not filing specific objections to magistrate reports)