Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cr-01191/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cr-01191-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Devin Deon Ross
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

 TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, SENIOR UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Pending before the Court is a Petition, filed on October 6, 2016, alleging 

violations of supervised release. Pursuant to a Standing Order of Referral, dated July 9, 

2014, the Honorable Susan R. Bolton, Senior United States District Judge, referred the 

Petition to Revoke Supervised Release in the above-numbered case to the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge to conduct a “hearing and preparation of findings and recommendations 

. . . and submit the necessary Report and Recommendation . . .” as authorized under 18 

U.S.C. § 3401(i) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). The parties consented in writing that this 

Magistrate Judge conduct this hearing on the Petition. (Doc. 63.) 

I. Procedural Background 

 On May 16, 2013, Defendant was sentenced to five months of imprisonment and 

36 months of supervised release for the offense of False Statement in the Acquisition of a 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Devon Deon Ross, 

Defendant. 

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CR-12-01191-PHX-SRB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 2:12-cr-01191-SRB Document 69 Filed 12/21/16 Page 1 of 9
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Firearm. (Doc. 34 at 1.) On August 24, 2016, the Court revoked Defendant’s supervised 

release, and sentenced Defendant to three months of home confinement and 12 months of 

supervised release. (Doc. 53.) 

 On October 6, 2016, a Petition to Revoke Supervised Release was filed alleging 

two violations. (Doc. 54.) 

 On December 12, 2016, this Court conducted an evidentiary hearing. The 

Government proceeded on the two allegations: 

Allegation A: Standard Condition #1 which states, “You 

shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime during the term of supervision.” 

On or about September 17, 2016, Ross committed the crime 

of Driving With a Suspended License, a misdemeanor 

violation of Arizona Revised Statutes § 28-3473A. This is 

evidenced by Scottsdale Police Department Report No. 16- 20856. A Grade C violation. U.S.S.G §7Bl.l(a)(3). 

Allegation B: Standard Condition #4 which states, “You 

shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer.” 

On September 29, 2016, Ross lied in response to the 

probation officer's inquiry regarding his September 17, 2016, citation from Scottsdale Police. In response to the probation officer's question, Ross stated he was pulled over by 

Scottsdale Police and issued a ticket for expired registration when, in fact, he was cited for driving with a suspended license. This is evidenced by the testimony of U.S. Probation Officer Chris Woodiel. A Grade C violation. U.S.S.G. §7B 

1.1 (a)(3). 

 (Doc. 54 at 1-2.) 

 Defendant was present and assisted by counsel. The Government called Probation 

Officer Chris Woodiel and admitted Exhibits A-F into evidence without objection by 

Defendant.1

 The Defendant testified. 

II. Findings of Fact

 The Court submits the following findings of fact. 

 

1

 The hearing exhibits do not match the exhibits contained in Doc. 62-1. The 

Court will refer to the exhibits admitted at the hearing, but may provide a corresponding reference to the same documents contained in Doc. 62-1. 

Case 2:12-cr-01191-SRB Document 69 Filed 12/21/16 Page 2 of 9
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

a. Probation Officer Chris Woodiel 

 On September 17, 2016, Defendant emailed Woodiel stating that Defendant had 

police contact. Woodiel subsequently requested, by email and text, a response from 

Defendant, but Defendant did not respond. On September 19, 2016, the Scottsdale Police 

Department informed Woodiel that Defendant was cited for a Driving on a Suspended 

License offense. Woodiel obtained a copy of the citation and report. 

 On September 29, 2016, Woodiel conducted an unannounced visit with Defendant 

at Defendant’s house. When asked about the traffic stop, Defendant told Woodiel that he 

was not stopped for Driving on a Suspended License but instead was stopped for driving 

a vehicle with expired tags. Woodiel told Defendant that Scottsdale Police informed 

Woodiel that Defendant was cited for Driving on a Suspended License. Defendant said 

that was incorrect, and instead said the only reason for the contact was expired tags. 

Woodiel asked for a copy of the citation, but Defendant said he did not have a copy of the 

citation. 

 Woodiel determined that Defendant had two prior traffic related incidents: 

1) On January 17, 2015, Tempe Police Department arrested and cited Defendant 

for traffic violations of DUI, Failure to Stop for Red Light, and Unsafe Lane Change. 

(See Ex. D.) Defendant was directed to report to the Scottsdale City Court. On April 21, 

2015, the Scottsdale City Court dismissed the DUI charges. (See Ex. D at 8.) On October 

7, 2015, the Scottsdale City Court entered Default Judgment against Defendant for failure 

to appear, which included a $779 fine and a suspension of Defendant’s driving privilege. 

(Ex D at 7; Doc. 62-1 at 14.) 

2) On November 28, 2015, a Maricopa County Deputy Sheriff stopped Defendant 

for speeding near US-60 and Center Street. The deputy checked the status of Defendant’s 

license and determined it was suspended. The deputy asked Defendant if he knew his 

license was suspended. Defendant stated that a judge quashed the warrant and told him to 

go to the Motor Vehicle Department to reinstate his license. The deputy issued a ticket to 

Defendant and cited him with Driving on a Suspended License. (Ex. E at 5; Doc. 62-1 at 

Case 2:12-cr-01191-SRB Document 69 Filed 12/21/16 Page 3 of 9
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

21.) Defendant was directed to appear in the Hassayampa Justice Court regarding the 

citation. On January 29, 2016, Defendant failed to appear in the Hassayampa Justice 

Court, and a default judgment was entered against him. (Ex. E at 2.) 

 Woodiel obtained a copy of Defendant’s Motor Vehicle record. (Ex. F.) The 

record (dated November 15, 2016) states that Defendant’s license was indefinitely 

suspended in 2015 and he was mailed notification.2

 The record contains two additional 

entries related to the Scottsdale City Court and Hassayampa Justice Court cases. Those 

entries state Defendant’s license was suspended in each case, and he was mailed 

notification of each city court suspension. (Ex. F.) 

 Woodiel testified that Defendant’s license remained suspended on the date of the 

instant hearing. 

b. Defendant Devin Deon Ross 

 Defendant knew he was required to not violate the law and contact his supervising 

probation officer if he had police contact. 

 Defendant agreed he was stopped on September 17, 2016, by a Scottsdale Police 

Officer near the 101 Freeway and Indian School Road. Defendant said he was pulled over 

for expired tags. Although he was driving, the car belonged to the passenger in the 

vehicle. Defendant recalled being given a citation. He was not arrested, but the officer 

told him that his license was suspended. Defendant told the officer he was not aware his 

license was suspended. Defendant was issued a citation. 

 Defendant agreed he contacted Woodiel and informed him of the traffic stop. 

Defendant testified that after that telephone contact with Woodiel, he did not recall 

receiving a text message or email from Woodiel asking for more information. On 

September 29, 2016, Woodiel met Defendant at Defendant’s residence. Woodiel asked if 

Defendant knew his license was suspended. Defendant told Woodiel his license was not 

 

2

 Woodiel testified on cross-examination that he checked the official Arizona 

MVD records, and the records reflected that the MVD department mailed Defendant several notices of suspension on different dates. Woodiel did not know the address the 

suspension notifications were mailed to. 

Case 2:12-cr-01191-SRB Document 69 Filed 12/21/16 Page 4 of 9
5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

suspended. Defendant stated that he did not have the citation when he spoke to Woodiel 

on September 29. Defendant said the car passenger had his paperwork and citation from 

the traffic stop on September 17. Defendant testified he thought he was not cited for 

driving on a suspended license. Defendant agreed that he signed the citation that charged 

him with driving on a suspended license (Ex. A), but he said he thought the citation was 

for expired tags. Defendant stated that he and the passenger took an “Uber” home from 

the traffic stop, and the passenger kept his citation. 

 Regarding the January 17, 2015 DUI and civil citations, Defendant stated his DUI 

case was dismissed. Defendant stated that he also filed for a hearing to reinstate his 

license. Defendant testified that the hearing was conducted in a hearing office near 

downtown, but the police officer did not appear for the hearing. Defendant said the 

suspension was then dismissed by the judge. Defendant believed his license was now 

valid. Defendant said he was not aware that he defaulted on his other tickets, and thus he 

was not aware that his license was suspended as a result of his default. 

 Regarding the November 28, 2015 stop by a MCSO deputy, Defendant agreed the 

deputy told him his license was suspended. Defendant stated that he told the deputy he 

went to a hearing and his suspension was dismissed. Defendant thus believed that his 

citation by the MCSO deputy was “invalid.” Defendant stated “he didn’t go to court for 

that” MCSO citation. 

 Defendant testified he never received any mail from MVD stating that his license 

was suspended. Defendant believed his license was not suspended. He stated he drove to 

his probation appointments because he was unaware his license was suspended. 

III. Conclusions of Law

 “A district court may ‘revoke a term of supervised release, and require the person 

to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release...if the court...finds by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised 

release.’” United States v. Vallejo, 69 F.3d 992, 994 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 

3583(e)(3)). The Court is required to determine if Defendant 1) knew or should have 

Case 2:12-cr-01191-SRB Document 69 Filed 12/21/16 Page 5 of 9
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

known his license was suspended when he drove on September 17, 2016 (Allegation A), 

and 2) did not answer truthfully to Woodiel on September 29, 2016 (Allegation B). 

a. (Allegation A) Commission of a Crime While on Supervision 

 The Court concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant 

committed the offense of Driving on a Suspended License3

 on September 17, 2016. 

 The parties do not dispute that Defendant’s license/driving privilege was 

suspended after the January 17, 2015 DUI arrest. At a minimum, Defendant’s license 

was suspended because Defendant was in default regarding the civil citations to that stop. 

(See Ex. D at 7-8.) The parties do not dispute that Defendant was told by the MCSO 

deputy on November 28, 2015 that Defendant’s license was suspended. Defendant was 

cited for Driving on a Suspended License by the MCSO deputy. Defendant was given a 

copy of the citation. Defendant admits that “he did not go to court for that” citation 

because he believed the suspension was dismissed. 

 On September 17, 2016, Defendant knew or should have known his license was 

suspended.4

 Defendant’s license was suspended because he defaulted on his civil traffic 

violations from the Tempe Police DUI stop in January 2015. (See Ex. D at 8.) Defendant 

was later cited for Driving on a Suspended License by the MCSO deputy in November 

2015, but Defendant did nothing regarding that citation because he said he believed the 

citation was “invalid.” Any reasonable person should have known his or her license was 

suspended after being cited that offense by a law enforcement officer. 

 The Court does not find Defendant credible when he testified he believed his 

license was valid. Instead, it is clear to the Court Defendant chose to do nothing and 

 

3

 A.R.S. § 28-3473(A): “Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a person who drives a motor vehicle on a public highway when the person’s privilege to drive a motor vehicle is suspended, revoked, canceled or refused or when the person is disqualified from driving is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.” 

4 State v. Yazzie, 307 P. 3d 1042, 1045 (Ct. App. Ariz. 2013) (“we hold that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant knew or should have known 

of his license suspension, revocation, cancellation, or refusal in prosecutions under A.R.S. § 28–3473.”). 

Case 2:12-cr-01191-SRB Document 69 Filed 12/21/16 Page 6 of 9
7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

claim ignorance regarding his license status. Defendant is articulate and intelligent. The 

Court does not find Defendant credible when he stated the MCSO citation was “invalid.” 

If Defendant contested the DUI suspension by requesting a hearing for that citation, then 

certainly he would have gone to Hassayampa Justice Court, as ordered, to fight his 

MCSO citation. Instead, he did not go to Hassayampa Justice Court. The MCSO citation 

also contained a civil speeding violation, which Defendant was also required to 

adjudicate. Defendant also defaulted on this MCSO civil speeding violation. Moreover, 

Defendant conducted no other investigation regarding his license status after the MCSO 

citation. The Court does not find Defendant credible when he claims that he believed his 

license was valid. Instead, at a bare minimum, he chose to do nothing and was 

intentionally ignorant of his license status. 

b. (Allegation B) Truthful Responses to Probation Officer 

 The Court concludes that on September 29, 2016, Probation Officer Woodiel 

asked Defendant if he was cited for Driving on a Suspended License and Defendant told 

Woodiel he was not cited for that offense. Woodiel was aware Defendant had police 

contact, and Woodiel had a copy of the Scottsdale Police report. Woodiel knew 

Defendant was cited for Driving on a Suspended License. Undoubtedly, Woodiel would 

have directly asked Defendant if he was cited for a criminal offense. The Court finds 

Woodiel credible when he testified that Defendant denied being cited for the offense of 

Driving on a Suspended License. 

 The Court thus concludes Defendant was not truthful in his conversation with 

Probation Officer Woodiel on September 29, 2016. Defendant testified that when he met 

with Woodiel on September 29, Defendant told Woodiel that the traffic stop concerned 

only expired tags. But Defendant agrees he was told by the police officer that his license 

was suspended. Defendant was also cited for driving on a suspended license. Defendant 

signed the citation. (Ex. A.) Defendant was given a copy of the citation. Defendant had 

previously been cited by MCSO for Driving on a Suspended License. Defendant is too 

Case 2:12-cr-01191-SRB Document 69 Filed 12/21/16 Page 7 of 9
8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

intelligent not to have known he was cited for Driving on a Suspended License.5

Importantly, Defendant stated on cross-examination that he went to MVD the very day of 

his Scottsdale citation (September 17, 2016).6

 Defendant later said he went to Scottsdale 

City Court (not MVD) and he learned he had tickets in collections. Regardless of where 

he went, Defendant agrees that on September 17, 2016, he immediately began checking 

the status of his license or cases. This conduct is not consistent with Defendant only 

being stopped for expired tags of another person’s vehicle. Defendant was not truthful as 

required by Standard Condition #4. 

IV. Recommendation 

 Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and LRCrim 

57.6(d)(4), Rules of Practice for the District of Arizona, the undersigned Magistrate 

Judge RECOMMENDS that the Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District 

Judge, after an independent review of the record, find Defendant violated the terms of 

supervised release contained in Allegations A and B. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(b)(1), Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

IT IS ORDERED setting a final disposition hearing for January 23, 2017, at 

3:45 p.m. before the Honorable Susan R. Bolton, Senior United States District Judge, in 

Courtroom 502, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, 

Phoenix, Arizona. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Probation Department shall prepare a 

Disposition Report and the Defendant shall cooperate with the Probation Department in 

 

5

 The Court notes that Defendant previously testified that he read the “fine print” on the back of his DUI citation from January 2015, which is consistent with his 

intelligence and awareness. 

6

 A transcript of the hearing has not been ordered. Defendant’s testimony on this point is at 11:33 A.M., approximately one hour into the hearing. Also, the September 17, 2016 stop occurred at 1:47 A.M., so Defendant could have gone to the MVD or city court on the day of the stop. 

Case 2:12-cr-01191-SRB Document 69 Filed 12/21/16 Page 8 of 9
9 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

its preparation of the Disposition Report. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall have 14 days from the date of 

service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections 

with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rule 59(b)(2), Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the 

District Judge without further review. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the 

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation. See Rule 59, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

 Dated this 21st day of December, 2016. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge

 

 

 

Case 2:12-cr-01191-SRB Document 69 Filed 12/21/16 Page 9 of 9