1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

vs.

ROY TATUM (1)

 

§

§

§ CASE NO. 6:24-CR-00001-JDK

§

§ 

§

§

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON REVOCATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

On July 12, 2024, the Court held a final revocation hearing on a Petition for Warrant or 

Summons for Offender under Supervision. The Government was represented by Assistant United 

States Attorney Dustin Farahnak. Defendant was represented by Assistant Federal Defender 

Jonathan Hyatt.

Background

After pleading guilty to the offense of Interstate Travel in Aid of Unlawful Activity, a Class 

D felony, Defendant Roy Tatum was sentenced on February 10, 2017, by United States District 

Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden, Southern District of Mississippi. The offense carried a statutory 

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

offense level of 33 and a criminal history category of V, was capped by the statutory maximum of

60 months. The Court sentenced Defendant to imprisonment for a term of 60 months, followed 

by a 3-year term of supervised release subject to the standard conditions of release, plus special 

conditions to include financial disclosure, no new credit charges/lines of credit, drug testing and 

treatment, marijuana restriction, synthetic narcotics restriction, and search condition. 

Case 6:24-cr-00001-JDK Document 17 Filed 07/15/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 36
2

Defendant completed his term of imprisonment and started his term of supervised release 

on October 20, 2021. Jurisdiction was transferred to the Eastern District of Texas on January 10, 

2024, and the case was assigned to United States District Judge Jeremy Kernodle. 

Allegations

In the Petition seeking to revoke Defendant’s supervised release, filed on June 20, 2024, 

United States Probation Officer Michelle Neubauer alleges that Defendant violated the following 

conditions of supervised release:

1. Allegation 1 (mandatory condition 1): The defendant shall not commit another 

federal, state, or local crime. It is alleged that Defendant was arrested in Dallas 

County, Texas on or about June 13, 2024, for Assault Causing Bodily Injury Family 

Member, a Class A Misdemeanor. 

2. Allegation 2 (standard condition 3): The defendant must not knowingly leave the 

federal judicial district where he is authorized to reside without first getting 

permission from the court or the probation officer. It is alleged that Defendant

was in Dallas County, Texas, a county not within the federal judicial district where he 

is authorized to reside, without permission from the probation officer.

3. Allegation 3 (standard condition 5): The defendant must live at a place approved 

by the probation officer. If the defendant plans to change where he lives or 

anything about his living arrangements (such as the people he lives with), he must 

notify the probation officer at least 10 days before the change. If notifying the 

probation officer in advance is not possible due to unanticipated circumstances, 

he must notify the probation officer within 72 hours of becoming aware of a 

change or expected change. It is alleged that Defendant is residing at a residence not 

approved by the probation officer: 1815 Nomas Street, Apartment 3, Dallas, Texas, 

75212. Defendant did not notify the probation officer of the residence change. 

4. Allegation 4 (mandatory condition): The defendant is ordered to pay the 

$5,000.00 fine at a rate of not less than $150 per month over a period of 36 months 

to commence 30 days after release from imprisonment to a term of supervision. 

It is alleged that Defendant has not paid the $5,000.00 fine in accordance with the 

schedule of payments, D, monthly installments of not less than $150.00 over a period 

of 36 months. It is alleged that Defendant has not made a payment towards the fine 

since June 2023.

 

Case 6:24-cr-00001-JDK Document 17 Filed 07/15/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 37
3

Applicable Law

According to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), the Court may revoke the term of supervised release 

and require a Defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release without 

credit for the time previously served under supervision, if it finds by a preponderance of the 

evidence that Defendant violated a term of supervised release. Supervised release shall be revoked 

upon a finding of a Grade A or B supervised release violation. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(1). In the 

present case, Defendant’s original offense of conviction was a Class D felony. Accordingly, the 

maximum imprisonment sentence that may be imposed is 2 years. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).

Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which are non-binding,1 if the Court finds by a 

preponderance of the evidence that Defendant violated his conditions of supervised release by

committing the offense of Assault Causing Bodily Injury Family Member, leaving the judicial 

district without permission, failing to notify the probation officer of a change in residence, or 

failing to pay his fine as ordered, as alleged in the petition, he is guilty of a Grade C violation. 

U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a). Defendant’s original criminal history category was V. The guidelines 

provide that Defendant’s guideline imprisonment range for a Grade C violation is 7 to 13 months. 

Hearing

On July 12, 2024, Defendant appeared for a final revocation hearing. Assistant United 

States Attorney Dustin Farahnak announced that Defendant and the Government reached an

agreement for Defendant to enter a plea of true to Allegations 2, 3 and 4 of the petition and for the 

Government to abandon Allegation 1. The parties did not reach an agreement as to punishment. 

1 The United States Sentencing Guidelines as applied to revocations of supervised release “have always been nonbinding, advisory guides to district courts in supervised release revocation proceedings.” United States v. Brown, 

122 Fed.Appx. 648, 2005 WL 518704, slip op. p.1 (citing United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir. 1995)); 

see also United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87 (5th Cir. 1994) (policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the 

Sentencing Guidelines applicable to sentencing a defendant upon revocation of supervised release are advisory 

only.).

Case 6:24-cr-00001-JDK Document 17 Filed 07/15/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 38
4

After the Court explained to Defendant his right to a revocation hearing, he waived his right to a 

revocation hearing and entered a plea of “true” to Allegations 2, 3, and 4 of the petition.

The parties then presented evidence concerning an appropriate sentence. The Government 

submitted evidence and testimony concerning the circumstances of the arrest that is alleged in the 

petition. The arresting officer, Officer Archie Hilburn, testified that he responded to a disturbance 

call involving Defendant and Stephanie Calhoun on June 13, 2024, in Dallas County, Texas. After 

speaking with both parties, Officer Hilburn placed Defendant under arrest. Ms. Calhoun, testified 

that Defendant had been living in Dallas for several months at the time of the incident. United 

States Probation Officer Ben Sanders testified that Defendant did not tell his probation officer that 

he was residing Dallas and stopped making payments on his fine after initially making payments. 

The supervising probation officer was aware that Defendant was working for a trucking company 

doing runs out of Dallas, but believed Defendant would return to his address in Palestine each day. 

Mr. Sanders stated that Defendant had several prior revocations due to noncompliance, including 

a failure to report a change in residence. Mr. Sanders recommended a sentence within the guideline

range of 7 to 13 months.

Defendant presented two witnesses—his sisters Donna Tatum and Doris Blacksher. Both 

Ms. Tatum and Ms. Blacksher attested to changes they have personally seen in their brother over 

the years. They stated that he has changed into a hard-working man, running his own trucking 

company, who is devoted to his family. 

The Government requested an upward departure sentence of imprisonment for a term of 

18 months. Defendant requested a downward departure for a sentence consisting only of a term 

of supervised release.

Case 6:24-cr-00001-JDK Document 17 Filed 07/15/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 39
5

Findings and Conclusions

I find that Defendant is competent and that his plea and waiver of the revocation hearing 

was knowingly and voluntarily made. I accept Defendant’s plea and find by a preponderance of 

the evidence that Allegations 2, 3 and 4 of the petition are true. Defendant is guilty of a Grade C

supervised release violation. Having considered the evidence presented at the hearing, I further 

find and conclude that Defendant’s term of supervised release should be revoked and that he should 

be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 10 months with no further term of supervised release. 

Any criminal history monetary penalties previously ordered in the final judgment should be 

imposed in this revocation, with all payments collected credited towards outstanding balances.

RECOMMENDATION

In light of the foregoing, it is recommended that Defendant’s plea of true to Allegations 2, 

3 and 4 of the petition be ACCEPTED and that Defendant’s term of supervised release be 

REVOKED. It is further recommended that Defendant be sentenced to imprisonment for a term 

of 10 months with no further term of supervised release. Any criminal monetary penalties 

previously ordered in the final judgment should be imposed in this revocation, with all payments 

collected credited towards outstanding balances. 

Before the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned announced the foregoing 

recommendation and notified Defendant of his right to object to this Report and Recommendation 

and to be present and allocute before being sentenced by the Court. Defendant waived those rights 

and executed a written waiver in open court. The Government also waived its right to object to 

the Report and Recommendation. It is therefore recommended that the Court revoke Defendant’s 

Case 6:24-cr-00001-JDK Document 17 Filed 07/15/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 40
6

supervised release and enter a Judgment and Commitment for him to be sentenced to imprisonment 

for a term of 10 months with no further term of supervised release.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15th day of July, 2024.

Case 6:24-cr-00001-JDK Document 17 Filed 07/15/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 41