United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
LINCOLN D. ALMOND, 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 her 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 January 26, 2016, at which time Defendant, through counsel and personally, admitted that she was in violation of her supervised release conditions as to Violation No. 1, as amended at the hearing; a hearing was held on Violation No. 2 at which time I found Defendant guilty. A sentencing hearing was held on March 16, 2016 at which time I ordered Defendant detained pending my Report and Recommendation and final sentencing before Chief Judge William E. Smith.
On September 18, 2015, the Probation Office petitioned the Court for the issuance of a summons. On September 22, 2015, the District Court reviewed the request and ordered the issuance of a summons. Thereafter, on January 26, 2016, Defendant appeared before the Court for a preliminary revocation hearing at which Defendant admitted to the following amended charge:
Violation No. 1: While on supervision, Defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local crime.
On August 23, 2015, Defendant committed Simple Assault (three counts) and Vandalism (two counts) in Central Falls, Rhode Island as evidenced by her arrest by members of the Central Falls Police Department on that day.
As Defendant has admitted this charge, I find she is in violation of the terms and conditions of her supervised release.
On January 26, 2016, a hearing was held on the following charge at which time I found Defendant guilty:
Violation No. 2: Defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance.
On or about April 22, 2015; July 30, 2015 and August 19, 2015 Defendant used cocaine as evidenced by her positive urine screens and her subsequent admissions.
Section 3583(e)(2), 18 U.S.C., 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. In this case, the maximum term of supervised release was previously imposed, therefore, the term cannot be extended.
Section 3583(e)(3), 18 U.S.C., 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. In this case, Defendant was on supervision for a Class C felony. Therefore, she may not be required to serve more than two-years' imprisonment upon revocation. However, since Defendant has already served two-months' imprisonment as a result of one previous revocation, the statutory maximum term of imprisonment remaining is twenty-two months.
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. In this case, the authorized statutory maximum term of supervised release is three years. There has been a total of two-months' imprisonment previously imposed for violations of ...