1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BEAUMONT DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

JONATHAN MICHEALS SHORTEN 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 1:23-CR-00030-MJT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION FOR WARRANT

FOR OFFENDER UNDER SUPERVISION

Pending is a “Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision” filed

October 24, 2023, alleging that the Defendant, Jonathan Micheals Shorten, violated his conditions 

of supervised release. This matter is referred to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for review, hearing, and submission of a report with recommended findings of 

fact and conclusions of law. See United States v. Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 919, 920 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994); 

see also 18 U.S.C. § 3401(i) (2000); E.D. TEX. CRIM. R. CR-59.

I. The Original Conviction and Sentence

Jonathan Micheals Shorten was sentenced on June 13, 2022, before The Honorable David 

Guaderrama, of the Western District of Texas, after pleading guilty to the offense of High Speed 

Flight from Immigration Checkpoint, a Class D felony. This offense carried a statutory maximum 

imprisonment term of 5 years. The guideline imprisonment range, based on a total offense level 

of 10 and a criminal history category of IV, was 15 to 21 months. Jonathan Micheals Shorten was 

subsequently sentenced, below the guideline range, to 8 months’ imprisonment followed by a 1

year term of supervised release subject to the standard conditions of release, plus special conditions 

Case 1:23-cr-00030-MJT Document 12 Filed 01/09/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 39
2

to include substance abuse testing and treatment, mental health treatment, alcohol abstinence, and 

a $100 special assessment.

II. The Period of Supervision

On January 10, 2023, Jonathan Micheals Shorten completed his period of imprisonment 

and began service of the supervision term. On March 20, 2023, the conditions of supervision were 

modified to include 90 days in a residential reentry center. On April 11, 2023, jurisdiction in this 

case was transferred to the Eastern District of Texas and reassigned to United States District Judge

Michael J. Truncale. On April 25, 2023, the conditions of supervision were modified to include 

participation in mental health treatment. 

III. The Petition

United States Probation filed the Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision 

raising four allegations. The petition alleges that Jonathan Micheals Shorten violated the following 

conditions of release:

Allegation 1. The Defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime.

Allegation 2. The Defendant shall not possess a controlled substance.

Allegation 3. The Defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled 

substance. 

Allegation 4. The Defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two 

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

IV. Proceedings

On January 9, 2024, the undersigned convened a hearing pursuant to Rule 32.1 of the 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to hear evidence and arguments on whether the Defendant 

violated conditions of supervised release, and the appropriate course of action for any such 

violations.

Case 1:23-cr-00030-MJT Document 12 Filed 01/09/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 40
3

At the revocation hearing, counsel for the Government and the Defendant announced an 

agreement as to a recommended disposition regarding the revocation. The Defendant agreed to 

plead “true” to the third allegation that claimed he failed to refrain from the unlawful use of a 

controlled substance. In return, the parties agreed that he should serve a term of 12 months and 1 

day of imprisonment with no supervised release to follow.

V. Principles of Analysis

According to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), the 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 post-release 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 five years in prison if the offense that resulted in the term of supervised 

release is a Class A felony, more than three years if such offense is a Class B felony, more than 

two years in prison if such offense is a Class C or D felony, or more than one year in any other 

case. The original offense of conviction was a Class D felony, therefore, the maximum 

imprisonment sentence is 2 years. 

According to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1), if a defendant possesses a controlled substance 

in violation of the conditions set forth in subsection (d), the court shall revoke the term of 

supervised release and require the defendant to serve a term of imprisonment not to exceed the 

maximum term of imprisonment authorized under subsection (e)(3). The original offense of 

conviction was a Class D felony; therefore, the maximum imprisonment sentence is 2 years.

Case 1:23-cr-00030-MJT Document 12 Filed 01/09/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 41
4

Based on 5th Circuit case law, the court can find that illicit drug use constitutes possession. 

Should the court find that the defendant violated his conditions of supervised release by possessing 

methamphetamine by use, he will be in violation of Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.115 and 

be guilty of committing a Grade B violation. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(1)

1

indicates that upon a finding 

of a Grade B violation, the court shall revoke probation or supervised release. 

U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a) provides that in the case of revocation of supervised release based on 

a Grade B violation and a criminal history category of IV, the policy statement imprisonment range 

is 12 to 18 months.

According to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of 

probation or supervised release shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of 

imprisonment that the defendant is serving, whether or not the sentence of imprisonment being 

served resulted from the conduct that is the basis of the revocation of probation or supervised 

release. The Defendant’s agreed upon revocation sentence shall run consecutively to any other 

term of imprisonment. 

In determining the Defendant’s sentence, the court shall consider:

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; 

to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and to provide the Defendant 

with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, other corrective treatment 

in the most effective manner; see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553 (a)(2)(B)-(D);

3. Applicable guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, 

for the appropriate application of the provisions when modifying or revoking 

supervised release pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(3), that are in effect on the date the 

defendant is sentenced; see 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(4); see also 28 U.S.C. § 924(A)(3);

1. All of the policy statements in Chapter 7 that govern sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release are 

non-binding. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 7 Pt. A; United States v. Bradberry, 360 F. App’x. 508, 509 (5th Cir. 2009).

Case 1:23-cr-00030-MJT Document 12 Filed 01/09/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 42
5

4. Any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 994(a)(2), that is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; see 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a)(5); and

5. 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).

6. The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. 

18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e) and 3553(a). 

VI. Application

The Defendant pled “true” to the petition’s allegation that he violated a mandatory

condition of release that he failed to refrain from the unlawful use of a controlled substance, which 

also constitutes possession. Based upon the Defendant’s plea of “true” to this allegation of the 

Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision and U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a), the 

undersigned finds that the Defendant violated a condition of supervised release. 

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

The Defendant’s violation is a Grade B violation, and the criminal history category is IV. The 

policy statement range in the Guidelines Manual is 12 to 18 months. The Defendant did not 

comply with the conditions of supervision and has demonstrated an unwillingness to adhere to the 

conditions of supervision. 

Consequently, incarceration appropriately addresses the Defendant’s violation. The 

sentencing objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation along with the aforementioned 

statutory sentencing factors will best be served by a prison sentence of 12 months and 1 day with 

no supervised release to follow.

VII. Recommendations

The court should find that the Defendant violated the allegation in the petition that he

violated a mandatory condition of release by failing to refrain from the unlawful use of a controlled 

Case 1:23-cr-00030-MJT Document 12 Filed 01/09/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 43
6

substance, which also constitutes possession. The petition should be granted, and the Defendant’s 

supervised release should be revoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583. The Defendant should be 

sentenced to a term of 12 months and 1 day of imprisonment with no supervised release to follow. 

VIII. Objections

At the close of the revocation hearing, the Defendant, defense counsel, and counsel for the 

government each signed a standard form waiving their right to object to the proposed findings and 

recommendations contained in this report, consenting to revocation of supervised release, and 

consenting to the imposition of the above sentence recommended in this report (involving all 

conditions of supervised release, if applicable). The Defendant also waived his right to be present 

and speak and have his counsel present and speak before the district court imposes the 

recommended sentence. Therefore, the court may act on this report and recommendation 

immediately.

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 9th day of January, 2024.

Case 1:23-cr-00030-MJT Document 12 Filed 01/09/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 44