IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WICHITA FALLS DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

'

V. ' Criminal Number: 7:04-CR-00011-O 

'

WILLIAM HUNTER (03) '

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

The undersigned submits this Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation to U.S. District 

Judge Reed O’Connor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the Order of Reference dated December 

13, 2017. ECF No. 177. The Court conducted a hearing on December 13, 2017, and heard 

arguments from all of the parties and evidence with regard to the Petition for Offender Under 

Supervision filed against WILLIAM HUNTER (“Defendant”). 

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

A. Original Conviction 

 On May 25, 2005, Senior U.S. District Judge Jerry Buchmeyer sentenced Defendant to 135 

months imprisonment, followed by a term of five years of supervised release, after Defendant’s 

plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment charging him with Conspiracy to Manufacture and 

Distribute Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (21 USC § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A)). 

ECF No. 116. 

Supervision of Defendant commenced on October 24, 2014. ECF No. 156. On April 13, 

2016, the United States Probation and Pretrial Services Office (USPSO) prepared a Report on 

Offender Under Supervision – No Court Action Recommended, which informed the Court of 

Defendant’s arrest for Driving While Intoxicated. ECF No. 155. USPSO did not recommend 
2 

further action, and Judge O’Connor agreed with the recommendation of the probation officer on 

April 19, 2016. Id. 

B. Current Revocation Proceedings 

1. Procedural History

 On June 8, 2017, USPSO prepared the Petition for Offender Under Supervision that is at 

issue in this case. ECF No. 156. The Petition requested that Judge O’Connor issue a violator’s 

warrant for Defendant’s arrest after he violated the conditions of supervised release discussed 

below. Id. Judge O’Connor ordered the issuance of a warrant on June 7, 2017. Id.

Defendant appeared before the undersigned on June 29, 2017, for an initial appearance. 

ECF No. 160. At that hearing, the undersigned found that probable cause existed to show that 

Defendant had violated the conditions of his supervised release as alleged, but that Defendant was 

not a risk of flight nor a danger to any other person or to the community. ECF No. 161. The 

undersigned ordered that Defendant be released on the same conditions of release previously set, 

with the additional condition that he report to the Serenity House Drug and Alcohol Treatment and 

Prevention program in Abilene, Texas, pending the final revocation hearing that was then set for 

September 18, 2017, before Judge O’Connor. Id. The final revocation hearing was later reset to 

October 23, 2017. ECF No. 164. 

On September 18, 2017, USPSO prepared a Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial 

Release, requesting that the undersigned issue a violator’s warrant for Defendant’s arrest after he 

violated the conditions of release that were set at the hearing on June 29, 2017. ECF No. 165. The 

Petition alleged that Defendant violated the terms of his pretrial release by driving while 

intoxicated on September 15, 2017, in Archer City, Texas, and by being arrested for that offense. 

Id. The undersigned ordered the issuance of a warrant on September 18, 2017. Id. 
3 

Thereafter, Defendant voluntarily surrendered to the United States Marshals Service in 

Lubbock, Texas. A Motion to Revoke Supervised Release (ECF No. 168) having been filed, 

Defendant appeared before United States Magistrate Judge D. Gordon Bryant in the Lubbock 

Division on September 22, 2017. ECF No. 169. Judge Bryant ordered that Defendant be transferred 

to the Wichita Falls Division to appear before the undersigned. ECF No. 170. Defendant appeared 

before the undersigned on October 10, 2017, at which time Defendant knowingly and voluntarily 

waived his right to challenge the Petition for Action. ECF No. 172. The undersigned therefore 

found that probable cause existed to believe that Defendant had violated the terms of his pretrial 

release and that Defendant presented a flight risk and a danger to the community or another person 

unless detained. Id. The final revocation hearing was reset two additional times, first until 

December 11, 2017, and finally until December 13, 2017. ECF Nos. 173 and 176. 

2. Violation Allegations 

 As indicated above, a violator’s warrant was issued and Defendant was arrested for 

allegedly violating terms of his supervised release. The Petition for Offender Under Supervision 

dated June 8, 2017 described the alleged violations as follows:

Violation of Standard Condition No. 7 

The defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol and shall not purchase, possess, use, 

distribute, or administer any controlled substance or any paraphernalia related to any controlled 

substance, except as prescribed by a physician. 

Violation of Special Condition No. 2 

The defendant shall participate in a program approved by the U.S. Probation Office for treatment 

of narcotic, drug, or alcohol dependency, which will include testing for the detection of substance 

use or abuse. The defendant shall abstain from the use of alcohol and/or all other intoxicants during 

and after completion of treatment. The defendant shall contribute to the costs of services rendered 

(copayment) at a rate of at least $25 per month. 
4 

Nature of Noncompliance 

William Hunter violated these conditions of supervised release by using and possessing alcohol, 

an intoxicant, in or about August 2016. On August 30, 2016, Mr. Hunter submitted a urine 

specimen to U.S. Probation Officer (USPO) James Williams at 1000 Lamar, Wichita Falls, Texas, 

that tested positive for alcohol. Furthermore, the urine specimen was confirmed positive for 

ethanol on September 16, 2016, by Alere Laboratories. On September 15, 2016, Mr. Hunter 

admitted to USPO Williams he consumed alcohol on August 29, 2016. 

Mr. Hunter violated these conditions of supervised release by possessing and using alcohol. On 

October 4, 2016, Mr. Hunter admitted to USPO Williams he consumed Saki, an alcoholic 

beverage, at Wasabi Restaurant in Wichita Falls, Texas, on October 23, 2016. 

Mr. Hunter violated these conditions of supervised release by possessing and using alcohol. On 

May 21, 2017, contact was made with Mr. Hunter during a routine traffic stop. State Trooper Justin 

Kaiser noted Mr. Hunter was a passenger of the vehicle and was extremely intoxicated. Trooper 

Kaiser also noted the driver was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated. Mr. Hunter was released 

to a sober third party who could supervise him in the highly intoxicated state. On May 23, 2017, 

Mr. Hunter admitted to USPO Williams he and his girlfriend were consuming alcohol at a friend’s 

house that night and he had consumed about 12 beers. Mr. Hunter noted his girlfriend was the one 

who was driving them home when they were stopped by police. 

Mr. Hunter violated these conditions of supervised release by failing to report for random urine 

testing on August 29, 2016. Furthermore, Mr. Hunter violated these conditions of supervised 

release by submitting a diluted urine specimen on September 26, 2016. 

Violation of Special Condition No. 11 

The defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being arrested or 

questioned by a law enforcement officer. 

Nature of Noncompliance 

Mr. Hunter violated this condition of supervised release by failing to notify his probation officer 

of law enforcement contact on March 13, 2017. Mr. Hunter was pulled over for a faulty tail light 

and was given a warning. 

3. Revocation Hearing 

A Final Revocation Hearing was held on December 13, 2017, before the undersigned. 

Defendant appeared in person and with his court-appointed counsel, Dustin Nimz. The United 

States appeared through Assistant United States Attorney Kate Rumsey. The proceedings were 

electronically recorded. 
5 

 Upon call of the matter, Defendant was placed under oath. The undersigned directed 

Defendant to the allegations contained in the Petition for Offender Under Supervision and read the 

allegations of violation to Defendant, after which Defendant indicated that he understood the 

allegations. The undersigned then explained to Defendant the statutory maximum terms of 

incarceration and supervised release as well as the sentencing options available to the Court. 

Defendant acknowledged his understanding and entered a plea of true to the allegations contained 

in Section I.B(2) above, specifically the Standard Condition that Defendant shall refrain from 

excessive use of alcohol and shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or administer any 

controlled substance or any paraphernalia related to any controlled substance, except as prescribed 

by a physician; the Special Condition that Defendant shall participate in a program approved by 

the U.S. Probation Office for treatment of narcotic, drug, or alcohol dependency, which will 

include testing for the detection of substance use or abuse, that Defendant shall abstain from the 

use of alcohol and/or all other intoxicants during and after completion of treatment, and Defendant 

shall contribute to the costs of services rendered (copayment) at a rate of at least $25 per month; 

and the Special Condition that Defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two 

hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer. 

Defendant consented orally and in writing to allocution before the magistrate judge. ECF 

No. 178. 

Defendant’s counsel stated that Defendant had made great strides toward rehabilitation 

from addiction following his release from prison. He no longer uses narcotics, but continues to 

have a problem with alcohol. He has partially completed his work on addressing this. He has held 

a job for an extended period of time. His family and his employer think well of him. Counsel stated 

that Defendant knew that he had done wrong, but he urged the Court to sentence him to time served 
6 

(86 days) so that he could continue his efforts to be a contributing member of society. He argued 

that the purposes of supervised release had been satisfied and that there was no need to impose an 

additional term following any additional term of imprisonment. 

Defendant’s mother stated that since Defendant completed his prison sentence, he had 

gotten off of drugs and had learned his lesson. He has a family that loves him and supports him. 

He has a 99-year-old grandmother, and Defendant helps take care of her when needed. Mrs. Hunter 

said that Defendant was a good person, a good guy. 

Defendant apologized to the Court for his conduct and said that he was trying hard to do 

better. He appreciated any consideration that could be given. He appeared to be sincere and 

respectful. He asked that he be assigned to a Bureau of Prison facility in the Dallas-Fort Worth 

area, as close to Wichita Falls as possible so that his friends and family could visit him. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Rumsey had no questions for Defendant. She argued that 

Defendant’s alcohol problems harmed him and were a danger to others. She suggested that the 

government could understand a sentence at the lower end of the Sentencing Guidelines range, but 

that a sentence of time served was not appropriate. She agreed that there was no need for an 

additional term of supervised release following the prison term. 

II. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 

A. Defendant pleaded true to the allegations that he violated conditions of his 

supervised release as contained in USPSO’s Petition for Offender Under 

Supervision, as set forth in Section I.B(2) above, specifically: the Standard 

Condition that Defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol and shall not 

purchase, possess, use, distribute, or administer any controlled substance or any 

paraphernalia related to any controlled substance, except as prescribed by a 

physician; the Special Condition that Defendant shall participate in a program 

approved by the U.S. Probation Office for treatment of narcotic, drug, or alcohol 

dependency, which will include testing for the detection of substance use or abuse, 

that Defendant shall abstain from the use of alcohol and/or all other intoxicants 

during and after completion of treatment, and Defendant shall contribute to the 

costs of services rendered (copayment) at a rate of at least $25 per month; and the 
7 

Special Condition that Defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventytwo hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer; 

B. Defendant was competent to make the decision to plead true to the allegations; 

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

him; 

D. 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; 

E. Defendant was sane and mentally competent to participate in these proceedings and 

to assist his attorney in the preparation and conduct of his defense; 

F. Defendant received a copy of USPSO’s Petition for Offender Under Supervision, 

either read or had it read to him, had adequate opportunity to discuss the charges 

against him with his attorney, and ultimately understood the charges alleged against 

him; 

G. A preliminary revocation hearing was held, and Defendant was initially released on 

existing conditions of release, with an additional condition requiring his 

participation in an in-patient substance abuse treatment program. Defendant 

completed that program, but later was arrested for an alcohol-related offense. He 

appeared before the Court, and the undersigned entered an Order of Detention 

pending the final revocation hearing; 

H. At the final revocation hearing, Defendant understood all of his statutory and 

constitutional rights, yet freely, intelligently, and voluntarily waived those rights 

and pleaded true to the allegations listed in subsection I.B(2) above; and 

I. The Defendant violated conditions of his supervised release. 

III. SENTENCING 

A. FACTORS 

The Court may revoke a term of supervised release after finding that a defendant has 

violated a condition of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Upon revocation, a court 

should impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the 

purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See § 3583(c). The sentencing court is to consider: 
8 

1. The nature and circumstance of the offense and the history and 

characteristics of the defendant, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); 

2. The need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence to criminal 

conduct, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B); to protect the public from further 

crimes of the defendant, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C); and to provide the 

defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or 

other corrective treatment in the most effective manner, see 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a)(2)(D)1

; 

3. The kinds of sentence and the applicable sentencing range established in the 

United States Sentencing Commission’s Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to 

section 994(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, any amendments thereto, 

and any associated policy statements made by act of Congress or issued by 

the Sentencing Commission, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(B); 

4. The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with 

similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct, see 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6); and 

5. The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense, see 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a)(7). 

The undersigned has carefully considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e) and 

3553(a) as applied to this defendant. 

B. STATUTORY AND GUIDELINE PROVISIONS 

The classification of Defendant’s underlying criminal offense results in a five-year 

statutory maximum term of incarceration upon revocation of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(3). United States Sentencing Guideline 7B1.4(a), p.s., suggests a revocation range of 

four to ten months imprisonment, based upon Defendant’s criminal history category of II and the 

admitted Grade C violations. Defendant may also be placed back on supervised release following 

 

1 Pursuant to United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011), the Court may not consider the factors 

listed in 18 U.S.C. § 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. 

Further, the sentencing court may not impose or lengthen a prison term in order to foster a defendant’s 

rehabilitation. Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011).
9 

any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation. 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 release, less any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h); see also United States v. Jackson, 559 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Accordingly, Defendant is subject to a term of supervised release of at least five years up to life, 

less any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of his current supervised release. 

IV. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant’s current term of supervised release began on October 24, 2014. Although he 

has not had a history of use of illegal narcotics since his supervised release began, Defendant has 

had a history of alcohol use and abuse. He failed to report for random urine testing on August 29, 

2016, submitted a urine specimen to USPSO the next day that tested positive for alcohol, and 

submitted a diluted urine specimen on September 26, 2016. He admitted drinking alcohol at a 

restaurant on October 23, 2016. On May 21, 2017, a Texas Department of Public Safety trooper 

pulled over a vehicle driven by Defendant’s girlfriend in which Defendant was a passenger. 

Defendant was extremely intoxicated, and his girlfriend was cited for Driving While Intoxicated. 

Two days later, Mr. Hunter admitted to the probation officer that he had drunk about twelve beers 

at a friend’s house before the DPS trooper pulled his girlfriend’s vehicle over. As stated above in 

the procedural history of this case, Defendant was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated in 2015 

(ECF No. 155) and 2017 (ECF No. 165). Defendant also failed to report being pulled over by a 

law enforcement officer in 2017 for having a faulty tail light.

Under these circumstances, an additional term of imprisonment is warranted. All but one 

of his violations of the conditions of supervised release previously set for him are due to 

Defendant’s use and abuse of alcohol. He has completed an in-patient substance abuse treatment 
10 

program previously, but he has more work to do to overcome this problem. He has support from 

his employer and from his family. He has no history of drug use or abuse since completing his 

initial term of imprisonment. Under these circumstances, an additional term of imprisonment 

within the guidelines is appropriate. Additionally, given these facts, it does not seem that 

Defendant would benefit from an additional term of supervised release following the completion 

of that sentence. 

V. CONCLUSION 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS: 

A. that Defendant be found to have violated the conditions of his supervised release 

as set forth in Section I.B(2) above, specifically: the Standard Condition that 

Defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol and shall not purchase, 

possess, use, distribute, or administer any controlled substance or any paraphernalia 

related to any controlled substance, except as prescribed by a physician; the Special 

Condition that Defendant shall participate in a program approved by the U.S. 

Probation Office for treatment of narcotic, drug, or alcohol dependency, which will 

include testing for the detection of substance use or abuse, that Defendant shall 

abstain from the use of alcohol and/or all other intoxicants during and after 

completion of treatment, and Defendant shall contribute to the costs of services 

rendered (copayment) at a rate of at least $25 per month; and the Special Condition 

that Defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being 

arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer; 

B. that his supervised release be REVOKED; 

C. that he be SENTENCED to the custody of the Attorney General for a period of 

six (6) months with a recommendation that he be designated to a facility in the 

Dallas-Fort Worth area or as close to Wichita Falls, Texas, as possible to facilitate 

family and friend visitation; and 

D. that no supervised release be reimposed following the completion of that 

sentence. 

 

NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 

A copy of this Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation shall be served on all parties 

in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this Findings, Conclusions, 
11 

and Recommendation must file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served 

with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 

Signed December 14, 2017. 

____________________________________ 

 Hal R. Ray, Jr. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE