1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CRIMINAL NO. W-20-CR-061-ADA

§

TROY ANTHONY MARION, JR. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The undersigned submits this Report and Recommendation to the district judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to 

United States Magistrate Judges. Before the Court is the petition of the United States Probation 

Office recommending the revocation of the Defendant’s term of supervision. The district judge 

referred the matter to the undersigned for the preparation of a report and recommendation.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Defendant was found guilty of Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The Court sentenced the Defendant to sixty 

(60) months in the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, followed by a three-year term of 

supervised release. The special conditions include participation in substance abuse treatment and 

testing, participation in mental health treatment, adherence to search condition, a $100.00 special 

assessment fee, and a $100.00 fine. On February 16, 2024, the Defendant was released to his 

Case 6:20-cr-00061-ADA Document 51 Filed 03/28/24 Page 1 of 4
2

term of supervision. On March 1, 2024, the United States Probation Office filed a Petition for 

Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision, alleging the Defendant violated the terms 

of his release and seeking a show-cause hearing as to why the Defendant’s supervised release 

should not be revoked. The petition alleged the Defendant violated the terms of his release in the 

following instance:

Violation Number 1: The defendant violated Standard Condition Number 1, in 

that, the defendant did not report to the Probation Office within 72 hours of his 

release from custody of the Bureau of Prisons.

II. FINDINGS OF THE COURT

At the hearing, the Defendant pleaded true to the violation. The Government presented 

evidence that would support a finding of true, by a preponderance of the evidence, as to the 

violation. 

1. The Defendant violated the conditions of his supervision as alleged in the petition. 

2. The Defendant was competent to make the decision to enter a plea to the allegations.

3. The Defendant had both a factual and rational understanding of the proceedings against 

him.

4. The Defendant did not suffer from any physical or mental impairment that would affect 

his ability to fully understand the charges against him or the consequences of his plea.

5. The Defendant has not had any injury that would affect his judgment in entering a plea or 

that would affect his understanding of the basis, consequences, or effect of his plea.

6. The Defendant was sane and mentally competent to stand trial for these proceedings.

7. The Defendant was sane and mentally competent to assist his attorney in the preparation 

and conduct of his defense.

Case 6:20-cr-00061-ADA Document 51 Filed 03/28/24 Page 2 of 4
3

8. The Defendant received a copy of the petition naming him, and he either read it or had it 

read to him.

9. The Defendant understood the petition and the charges alleged against him and had the 

opportunity to discuss the petition and charges with his attorney.

10. The Defendant understood that he had the right to present evidence and to cross-examine 

witnesses at the hearing.

11. The Defendant freely, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea to the allegations.

12. The Defendant understood his statutory and constitutional rights and desired to waive 

them.

III. RECOMMENDATION

The undersigned has carefully considered all the arguments and evidence presented by 

the parties and RECOMMENDS that the Defendant be continued on supervised release, and 

that he be remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshals as a special condition of that supervised 

release for a period of time served. The Court should reimpose the original conditions of 

supervised release.

IV. WARNINGS

The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing 

objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are 

being made. The district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See 

Battles v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).

A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations 

contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the 

Case 6:20-cr-00061-ADA Document 51 Filed 03/28/24 Page 3 of 4
4

Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the district judge of the proposed findings and 

recommendations in the Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from 

appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by 

the district judge. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); 

Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en 

banc).

SIGNED this 28th day of March 2024.

JEFFREY C. MANSKE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:20-cr-00061-ADA Document 51 Filed 03/28/24 Page 4 of 4