IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

§ Criminal Action No.

vs. § 3:22-CR-303-S

§

KANDACE SHANELL BENNINGFIELD §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

By electronic order of reference dated March 29, 2023 (doc. 15), before the Court for

recommendation are the Petition for Person Under Supervision, filed March 2, 2023 (doc. 5), and an

Addendum to Petition for Person Under Supervision, filed May 5, 2023 (doc. 19). The defendant

appeared in person and through counsel for a final revocation hearing on May 23, 2023. Based on the

filings, evidence, testimony, oral argument, and applicable law, the defendant’s term of supervised

release should be REVOKED, and she should be sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment of

SIX (6) MONTHS, with no additional term of supervised release to follow.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 12, 2019, Kandace Shanell Benningfield (Defendant) was charged by 

indictment filed in the Western District of Texas with conspiracy to possess stolen firearms in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2)). (See doc. 2 at 6-8.))1 She pleaded

guilty, and by judgment dated October 30, 2020, she was sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment,

to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. (See id. at 12-18.) She began her term of

supervised release on March 7, 2022, and jurisdiction was transferred to the Northern District of Texas

by order dated August 11, 2022. (See doc. 1; doc. 5.)

1

Citations to the record refer to the CM/ECF system page number at the top of each page rather than the page

numbers at the bottom of each filing.

Case 3:22-cr-00303-S Document 23 Filed 05/23/23 Page 1 of 11 PageID 147
A. Petition

On March 2, 2023, the supervising United States Probation Officer (USPO) submitted a

petition for person under supervision (Petition) alleging the following violations:

I.

Violation of Mandatory Condition 2

The defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled substance.

Violation of Mandatory Condition 3

The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. The defendant

shall submit to one drug test within 15 days of release on probation or supervised release and

at least two periodic drug tests thereafter (as determined by the court), but the condition stated

in this paragraph may be ameliorated or suspended by the court if the defendant’s presentence

report or other reliable sentencing information indicates low risk of future substance abuse by

the defendant.

Violation of Additional Condition

The defendant shall participate in a substance abuse treatment program and follow the rules

and regulations of that program. The program may include testing and examination during and

after program completion to determine if the defendant has reverted to the use of drugs. The

probation officer shall supervise the participation in the program (provider, location, modality,

duration, intensity, etc.). During treatment, the defendant shall abstain from the use of alcohol

and any and all intoxicants. The defendant shall pay the costs of such treatment if financially

able.

Nature of Noncompliance

Kandace Shanell Benningfield violated these conditions of supervised release by using and

possessing methamphetamines, an illegal controlled substance, in or about April 2022. On

April 19, 2022, Ms. Benningfield submitted a urine specimen to Homeward Bound,

Incorporated (HBI) in Dallas, Texas that tested positive for amphetamines. On May 6, 2022,

Ms. Benningfield admitted verbally to U.S. Probation Officer Beau Morris (USPO Morris) to

using methamphetamines on April 18,2022. Furthermore, on May 27, 2022, the national

laboratory confirmed the urine specimen positive for methamphetamines.

Ms. Benningfield violated these conditions of supervised release by using and possessing

methamphetamines, an illegal controlled substance, in or about May 2022. On May 17, 2022,

Ms. Benningfield submitted a urine specimen to HBI that tested positive for amphetamines.

On June 15, 2022, Ms. Benningfield admitted verbally and in liting to USPO Morris to using

methamphetamines on May 17, 2022. Furthermore, on June 17, 2022, the national laboratory

2

Case 3:22-cr-00303-S Document 23 Filed 05/23/23 Page 2 of 11 PageID 148
confirmed the urine specimen positive for methamphetamines.

Ms. Benningfield violated these conditions of supervised release by using and possessing

methamphetamines, an illegal controlled substance, in or about July 2022. On July 14, 2022,

Ms. Benningfield submitted a urine specimen to HBI that tested positive for amphetamines.

Furthermore, on August 19, 2022, the national laboratory confirmed the urine specimen

positive for methamphetamines. 

Ms. Benningfield violated these conditions of supervised release by using and possessing

methamphetamines, an illegal controlled substance, in or about July 2022. On July 22, 2022,

Ms. Benningfield submitted a urine specimen to HBI that tested positive for amphetamines.

Furthermore, on August 16, 2022, the national laboratory confirmed the urine specimen

positive for methamphetamines.

Ms. Benningfield violated these conditions of supervised release by using and possessing

methamphetamines, an illegal controlled substance, in or about August 2022. On August 11,

2022, Ms. Benningfield submitted a urine specimen to HBI that tested positive for

amphetamines. Furthermore, on September 3, 2022, the national laboratory confirmed the

urine specimen positive for methamphetamines.

Ms. Benningfield violated these conditions of supervised release by using and possessing

methamphetamines, an illegal controlled substance, in or about August 2022. On August 26,

2022, Ms. Benningfield submitted a urine specimen to HBI that tested positive for

amphetamines. Furthermore, on September 3, 2022, the national laboratory verified the sample

was not consistent with human urine. Fahd Naeem Ahmad violated these conditions of

supervised release by using methamphetamines, an illegal controlled substance, in or about

March 2022. On March 28, 2022, Mr. Ahmad submitted a urine specimen to a contract vendor,

Phoenix Associates and Counseling (PACS), in Dallas, Texas, which tested positive for

amphetamine. On April 21, 2022, the specimen confirmed positive for methamphetamine. 

II.

Violation of Additional Condition

The defendant shall participate in a substance abuse treatment program and follow the rules

and regulations of that program. The program may include testing and examination during and

after program completion to determine if the defendant has reverted to the use of drugs. The

probation officer shall supervise the participation in the program (provider, location, modality,

duration, intensity, etc.). During treatment, the defendant shall abstain from the use of alcohol

and any and all intoxicants. The defendant shall pay the costs of such treatment if financially

able.

Nature of Noncompliance

Ms. Benningfield violated this condition of supervised release by failing to report to HBI to

submit urine specimens as instructed on April 6, 2022, April 18, 2022, May 11,2022, June 6,

3

Case 3:22-cr-00303-S Document 23 Filed 05/23/23 Page 3 of 11 PageID 149
2022, June 17, 2022, July 21, 2022, August 10, 2022, August 25, 2022, September 6, 2022,

September 15, 2022, September 26, 2022, November 16, 2022, December 6, 2022, January 4,

2023, Januai-y 12, 2023, Tebruary 7, 2023, and February 20, 2023.

Ms. Benningfield violated this condition of supervised release by failing to report to HBI for

group counseling sessions on August 29, 2022, September 12, 2022, October 4, 2022,

November 3, 2022, November 17, 2022, November 29, 2022. 

Ms. Benningfield violated this condition of supervised release by failing to report to HBl for

individual counseling sessions on October 20, 2022.

III.

Violation of Standard Condition 13

The defendant shall follow the instructions of the probation officer related to the conditions

of supervision.

Violation of Additional Condition

The defendant shall submit to substance abuse testing to determine if the defendant has used

a prohibited substance. The defendant shall not attempt to obstruct or tamper with the testing

methods. The defendant shall pay the costs of testing if financially able.

Nature of Noncompliance

Ms. Benningfield violated these conditions of supervised release by failing to follow the

instructions of the U.S. Probation Officer by refusing to submit a urine specimen. On February

16, 2023, Ms. Benningfield reported to the U.S. Probation Office in Dallas, Texas, for a

meeting with U.S. Probation Officer Stephen Jordan (OSPO Jordan) and she was instructed

to provide a urine specimen. Ms. Benningfield refused to submit a urine specimen and verbally

and in writing documented her refusal.

IV.

Violation of Additional Condition

If the judgment imposes a financial penalty, the defendant shall pay the financial penalty in

accordance with the Schedule of Payments sheet of this judgment. The defendant shall notify

the court of any changes in economic circumstances that might affect the ability to pay this

financial penalty. 

Violation of Mandatory Condition 7

If the judgment imposes a fine or restitution, it is a condition of supervision that the defendant

pay in accordance with the Schedule of Payments sheet of the judgment.

4

Case 3:22-cr-00303-S Document 23 Filed 05/23/23 Page 4 of 11 PageID 150
Violation of Standard Condition No. 14

If the judgment imposes criminal monetary penalties, it is acondition of supervision that the

defendant pay such penalties in accordance with the Schedule of Payments sheet of the

judgment.

Restitution - Jointly and Severally

The defendant shall pay restitution in the amount of $19,762.63 through the Clerk, U.S.

District Court, 800 Franklin Avenue, Room 380, Waco, Texas 76701 for transfer to the

victims. Payment of this sum shall begin immediately. Defendant Kandace Shanell

Benningfield will owe the victims jointly and severally with Lucas James Tighe,

6:19-CR-338-l; William Ryan James, 6:19-CR-338-2; Rosa Lee Kolar, 6:19-CR-338-3; and

Trent Michael Freeman, 6:19-CR-338-5. No further payment shall be required after tlie sum

of the amounts actually paid by the defendants has fully covered all compensable injuries. The

defendant shall pay restitution at a rate of no less than $200 per month, due by the third day

of each month, beginning no later than 60 days after the defendant’s start of supervision. The

Court imposed payment schedule shall not prevent statutorily authorized collection efforts by

the United States Attorney. The defendant shall cooperate fully with the United States

Attorney for the district within 30 days of any change in mailing or residence address that

occurs while any portion of the restitution remains unpaid. The Court determined that the

defendant does not have the ability to pay interest and therefore waives the interest

requirement. 18 U.S.C. §3612(f)(3)

Name of Payee Amount of Restitution

RVOS Farm Mutual Insurance Company $13,279.29

P. O. B o x 6106

Temple, TX 76503

Traveler’s Insurance $5,883.34

P. O. Box 650293

Dallas, TX 75265

Nature of Noncompliance

Ms. Benningfield violated these conditions of supervised release by failing to submit

consistent monthly payments towards restitution as instructed. Ms. Benningfield failed to

submit payments in May 2022, June, July 2022, August 2022, September 2022, October 2022,

November 2022, December 2022, January 2023, and February 2023. The restitution

outstanding balance is $12,673.16.

(See doc. 5.) A summons for Defendant’s appearance was issued on March 3, 2023. (See doc. 6.) She

made her initial appearance in this district on March 28, 2023, and was released by order setting

conditions of release. (See docs. 11, 13.)

5

Case 3:22-cr-00303-S Document 23 Filed 05/23/23 Page 5 of 11 PageID 151
B. Addendum to Petition

On May 5, 2023, the supervising USPO submitted an addendum to the petition for person

under supervision (Addendum) that corrected the Petition (noted in italicized text) and also alleged

additional violations:

Corrections to the Petition for Person Under Supervision:

Violation of Mandatory Condition 2

The defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled substance.

Violation of Mandatory Condition 3

The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. The defendant

shall submit to one drug test within 15 days of release on probation or supervised release and

at least two periodic drug tests thereafter (as determined by the court), but the condition stated

in this paragraph may be ameliorated or suspended by the court if the defendant’s presentence

report or other reliable sentencing information indicates low risk of future substance abuse by

the defendant.

Nature of Noncompliance

Ms. Benningfield violated these conditions of supervised release by using and possessing

methamphetamine, an illegal controlled substance, in or about August 2022. On August 26,

2022, Ms. Benningfield submitted a urine specimen to Homeward Bound, Incorporated (HBI),

in Dallas, Texas, that tested positive for amphetamine. Furthermore, on September 20, 2022,

the national drug testing laboratory, Abbott, confirmed the sample positive for

methamphetamine.

VI.

Violation of Additional Condition

The defendant shall participate in a substance abuse treatment program and follow the rules

and

regulations of that program. The program may include testing and examination during and

after program completion to determine if the defendant has reverted to the use of drugs. The

probation officer shall supervise the participation in the program (provider, location, modality,

duration, intensity, etc.). During treatment, the defendant shall abstain from the use of alcohol

and any and all intoxicants. The defendant shall pay the costs of such treatment if financially

able.

6

Case 3:22-cr-00303-S Document 23 Filed 05/23/23 Page 6 of 11 PageID 152
Nature of Noncompliance

Ms. Benningfield violated this condition of supervised release by when she failed to submit

urine

specimens, as instructed, to HBI, in Dallas, on March 27, 2023.

Ms. Benningfield violated this condition of supervised release by failing to report to HBI, in

Dallas, for group counseling sessions on April 6, 2023.

(See doc. 19 (emphasis original)).

C. Hearing

Defendant appeared for a final revocation hearing on May 23, 2023. After her competence was

established, Defendant testified under oath that she understood the violations alleged in the petitions,

and the range of punishment for those violations. She also understood that she had the right to plead

not true and have a hearing concerning whether she committed those violations, and that revocation

was mandatory. Despite her understanding, Defendant knowingly and voluntarily consented to enter

a plea of true before a United States Magistrate Judge to the violations alleged in the Petition, as

corrected and supplemented in the Addendum, except for the alleged failure to provide a drug test on

March 27, 2023.2

 She sought to be heard, however, on the issue of the appropriate sentence. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, it was orally recommended that the plea of true be accepted

by the district judge, that Defendant’s term of supervised release be revoked, and that she be sentenced

to an additional term of imprisonment of SIX (6) MONTHS, with no additional term of supervised

release to follow. Defendant was advised that (1) a formal written recommendation would issue; (2)

she would have 14 days to object to the recommendation; (3) she had a right to appear and speak, and

to have her counsel appear and speak, before the district judge prior to sentence being imposed; and

(4) she could waive these rights.

2

The government elected to not proceed on the alleged failure to provide a drug test on March 27, 2023, the

day of her initial appearance. 

7

Case 3:22-cr-00303-S Document 23 Filed 05/23/23 Page 7 of 11 PageID 153
III. SENTENCE

Section 3583(e)(3) of Title 18 provides that after considering the factors set out in §

3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7), a 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 postrelease 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 5 years in prison

if the offense that resulted in the term of supervised release is a class A felony, more than 3

years in prison if such offense is a class B felony, more than 2 years in prison if such offense

is a class C or D felony, or more than one year in any other case[.]

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The relevant factors in § 3553(a) to be considered are:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the

defendant;

(2) the need for the sentence imposed--

***

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical

care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;

***

(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for--

(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of

defendant as set forth in the guidelines--

(i) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(1) of title

28, United States Code, subject to any amendments made to such guidelines by

act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have yet to be

incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments issued under

section 994(p) of title 28); and

(ii) that, except as provided in section 3742(g), are in effect on the date the

defendant is sentenced; or

(B) in the case of a violation of probation or supervised release, the applicable

guidelines or policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to

section 994(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, taking into account any amendments

made to such guidelines or policy statements by act of Congress (regardless of whether

such amendments have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into

amendments issued under section 994(p) of title 28);

(5) any pertinent policy statement--

(A) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(2) of title 28,

8

Case 3:22-cr-00303-S Document 23 Filed 05/23/23 Page 8 of 11 PageID 154
United States Code, subject to any amendments made to such policy statement by act

of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have yet to be incorporated by

the Sentencing Commission into amendments issued under section 994(p) of title 28);

and

(B) that, except as provided in section 3742(g), is in effect on the date the defendant

is sentenced.

(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records

who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and

(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3).3 Revocation of a term of supervised release is mandatory if the

defendant possesses a controlled substance, possesses a firearm, refuses to comply with drug testing,

or tests positive for illegal controlled substances more than three times over the course of one year. 

18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). 

Based on her knowing and voluntary plea of true, the Court finds that Defendant has violated

the mandatory and special conditions alleged in the Petition, as corrected and supplemented in the

Addendum, except for the alleged failure to provide a drug test on March 27, 2023. Because she

violated her conditions of supervised release by possessing a controlled substance and refusing to

comply with drug testing, revocation of her supervised release is mandatory.

As set out in the Petition, the statutory maximum term of incarceration upon revocation of

Defendant’s supervised release is two years. (See doc. 5 at 5 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)).) Based

upon a violation grade of C and a criminal history category of IV, the resulting range of imprisonment

under United States Sentencing Guideline (USSG) § 7B1.4(a), p.s., is 6 to 12 months. (See id. at 6.) 

Defendant may also be placed back on supervised release following any term of imprisonment

imposed upon revocation, but the maximum term of supervised release must not exceed the term of

supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the original term of supervised

3

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that courts may not consider the factors listed in § 3553(a)(2)(A),

which include “the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the

offense,” when revoking a term of supervised release. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011). Nor may

courts impose or lengthen a prison term in order to foster a defendant’s rehabilitation. United States v. Tapia, 131

S.Ct. 2382 (2011).

9

Case 3:22-cr-00303-S Document 23 Filed 05/23/23 Page 9 of 11 PageID 155
release, less any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation. (See id. at 5, citing 18 U.S.C. §

3583(h); U.S v. Jackson, 559 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2009).) Defendant is subject to a maximum term of

supervised release of up to three years, minus the revocation sentence. (See id., citing 18 U.S.C. §

3583(h).) 

After considering only the facts alleged in the Petition, as corrected and supplemented in the

Addendum, except for the alleged failure to provide a drug test on March 27, 2023, and Defendant’s

plea of true, as well as the relevant factors identified in § 3583(e) that are set forth in § 3553(a), and

not considering any factor that it is precluded from considering under Supreme Court or Fifth Circuit

authority, the Court finds that a custody sentence of SIX (6) MONTHS, with no additional term of

supervised release to follow, is sufficient but not greater than necessary to accomplish the relevant

sentencing objectives. This sentence is warranted under the facts of this case set out in the Petition. 

Defendant began testing positive for methamphetamine within one month of beginning her term of

supervised release and has tested positive for illegal substances on 6 occasions. She has admitted using

illegal substances regularly, she repeatedly failed to report for treatment and drug testing, and she

refused to comply with her supervising officer’s instructions to provide a urine specimen on one

occasion. The U.S. Probation Office did everything it could to assist her, which demonstrated that she

was neither willing nor ready to commit to behavioral change. Given her most recent efforts to commit

to behavioral change, including her sobriety and compliance with her testing and counseling

conditions of release since her initial appearance, however, a custody sentence at the bottom of the

guideline range with no additional term of supervised release to follow will assist in serving as a

deterrent to further drug use and criminal behavior and will afford adequate deterrence and protect the

public from further crimes.

10

Case 3:22-cr-00303-S Document 23 Filed 05/23/23 Page 10 of 11 PageID 156
IV. RECOMMENDATION

Defendant’s plea of true to the violations in the Petition, as corrected and supplemented in the

Addendum, except for the alleged failure to provide a drug test on March 27, 2023, should be

accepted, her term of supervised release should be REVOKED, and she should be committed to the

custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of SIX (6) MONTHS, with

no additional term of supervised release to follow. 

SO RECOMMENDED on this 23rd day of May, 2023.

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation shall be served on all parties in

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions and

recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify

the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection,

and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions and recommendation where the

disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the

briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar

the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge

that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass

v. United Servs. Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11

Case 3:22-cr-00303-S Document 23 Filed 05/23/23 Page 11 of 11 PageID 157