-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO. 1:00-CR-96(3)

 §

JONATHAN ONEAL WILLIAMS §

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA OF TRUE

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the Local Rules for the District Court, Eastern District

of Texas, the District Court referred this matter for hearing and the submission of findings of fact

and a report and recommendation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3401(i) and 3583(e). The United States

alleges that Defendant, Jonathan Oneal Williams, violated conditions of supervised release imposed

by United States District Judge Thad Heartfield. The United States Probation Office filed its

Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision (doc. #268) requesting the

revocation of the defendant’s supervised release 

The Court conducted a hearing on April 17, 2012, in accordance with Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure 11, 32 and 32.1. Defendant was present and represented by counsel at the
-2-

hearing. Having heard the evidence, this court factually finds that the defendant has violated

conditions of supervision and recommends that such violation warrants the revocation of his

supervised release.

After conducting the proceeding in the form and manner prescribed by Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure11, the Court finds:

a. That Defendant, after consultation with counsel of record, has knowingly, freely and

voluntarily consented to the administration of the plea of true in this cause by a United States

Magistrate Judge subject to a final approval and imposition of sentence by the District Court.

b. That Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that

Defendant is aware of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea, that his plea of

true is a knowing and voluntary plea, not the result of force or threats, and that the plea is supported

by an independent evidentiary basis in fact establishing each of the essential elements of the

conduct.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

A. Procedural History

On May 22, 2001, The Honorable Thad Heartfield, United States District Judge, sentenced

Jonathan Oneal Williams after he pled guilty to the offense of Theft of Interstate Commerce by

Force, a Class B felony. Judg Heartfield sentenced the defendant to 108 months imprisonment,

followed by five years of supervised release subject to the standard conditions of release, plus

special conditions to include obtain GED, drug treatment, and a $100 special assessment. On May

7, 2009, Williams completed his period ofimprisonment and began service of the supervision term.

 
-3-

B. Allegations in Petition

The United States alleges that the defendant violated the following standard condition of

supervised release:

The defendant shall report to the probation officer as directed by the Court or probation

officer, and shall submit a truthful and complete written report within the first five days of each

month.

The defendant failed to report to theU.S. Probation Officer on January 24, 2012, as directed.

C. Evidence presented at Hearing

At the hearing, the Government proffered the following evidence as its factual basis for the

allegations set out supra. The Government would show that as a condition of his supervision, Mr.

Williams was ordered to report to his probation officer as directed. The Government would offer

testimony establishing that his probation officer directed him to report on January 24, 2012, but

Williams failed to report on this day.

Defendant, Jonathan Oneal Williams, offered a plea of true to the allegations. Specifically,

Mr. Williams agreed with the evidence presented and pled true to the allegation that he failed to

report to his probation officer as directed in violation of his supervision conditions in this case.

D. Sentencing Guidelines; Findings and Recommended Disposition

The allegations, supporting evidence and plea of true warrant revocation of supervised

release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The Court factually finds by a preponderance of the evidence

that the defendant violated a standard condition of his supervised release by failing to report to his

probation officer as directed.
 See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Ch. 7, pt. A, cmt. 1 ("At this time, the Commission has chosen to 1

promulgate policy statements only.")

-4-

If the Court finds that Mr. Williams violated his supervision conditions in the manner stated

above, this will constitute a Grade C violation under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a). Upon finding a Grade

C violation, the Court may revoke the defendant’s supervised release. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(2).

Based upon the defendant’s criminal history category of II and the Grade C violation, the

Sentencing Guidelines suggest a sentence of imprisonment for a period ranging from 4 to 10

months. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). Because the original offense of conviction was aClass B felony,

the statutory maximum imprisonment term upon revocation is three years. See 18 U.S.C. §

3583(e)(3).

 The Fifth Circuit states that Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines regarding the revocation

of supervised release is advisory only. See United States v. Cade, 279 F.3d 265, 271 n.2 (5 Cir. th

2002) (citing United States v. Montez, 952 F.2d 854, 859 (5 Cir. 1992); United States v. Headrick,

th

963 F.2d 777, 782 (5 Cir. 1992)). Because Chapter 7 was promulgated as an advisory policy th

statement and there are no applicable guidelines for sentencing after revocation of supervised

release , the Court may impose a greater or lesser sentence upon revocation. United States v. 1

Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925 (5 Cir. 2001). Further, a sentence imposed for revocation will be th

upheld unless it is in violation of the law or plainly unreasonable. Id. See also United States v.

Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5 Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). th

Here, the evidence and the defendant’s own admission supports a finding that he violated

his supervision conditions. The Court, therefore, finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the

defendant committed a Grade C violation of his supervision conditions by failing to report to his
-5-

probation officer as directed. The defendant knowingly and voluntarily pled true and agreed with

the Court’s recommended sentence for the violation.

Accordingly, based upon the defendant’s plea of true, the agreement of the parties, and the

evidence presented in this case, it is the recommendation of the undersigned United States

Magistrate Judge that the District Court accept the plea of true and revoke the defendant’s

supervised release. The undersigned magistrate judge further recommends that the District Court

order Defendant, Jonathan Oneal Williams, to serve a term of six (6) months imprisonment with

no further supervision to follow in this case, to run concurrently with the term of imprisonment

imposed against him for the revocation of his supervised release in cause number 1:08-CR-32 here

in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 

OBJECTIONS

Objections must be: (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within fourteen (14)

days after being served with a copy of this report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

A party’s failure to object bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by a

district judge of proposed findings and recommendations, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275,

276-77 (5 Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error of unobjected-to th

factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, see Douglass v. United Servs.

Auto. Ass’n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5 Cir. 1996) (en banc). The constitutional safeguards afforded th

by Congress and the courts require that, when a party takes advantage of his right to object to a

magistrate’sfindings or recommendation, a district judge must exercise its nondelegable authority

by considering the actual evidence and not merely by reviewing and blindly adopting the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation. See Hernandez v. Estelle, 711 F.2d 619, 620 (5 Cir. 1983); th
-6-

United States v. Elsoffer, 644 F.2d 357, 359 (5 Cir. 1981) (per curiam). th