United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION TO REVOKE SUPERVISED RELEASE
LEONARD T. STRAND, Magistrate Judge.
This case is before me on a second supplemental and substituted petition (Petition) to revoke defendant Anthony Goodshield's supervised release. The Petition (Doc. No. 72) was filed December 23, 2013. The Honorable Donald E. O'Brien referred this matter to me for the issuance of a report and recommended disposition (Doc. No. 82).
I held an evidentiary hearing on February 12, 2014. Plaintiff (the Government) was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Shawn Wehde. United States Probation Officer Ronica Prevail was also present. Goodshield appeared in person and with his attorney, Rees Conrad Douglas. During the hearing, Goodshield admitted (through counsel) all violations alleged in the Petition. As such, neither party presented evidence. However, Goodshield exercised his right to make a statement to me in which he accepted full responsibility for his actions, acknowledged that all of the information in the Petition is true and thanked Officer Lutgen for his efforts to help him.
Because Goodshield has admitted all of the allegations set forth in the Petition, I will not provide a detailed analysis of them here. By way of background, on May 31, 2007, Goodshield was sentenced to 70 months imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release (TSR) based on his plea of guilty to the offense of felon in possession of a firearm. See Doc. Nos. 31, 33. Goodshield commenced his initial TSR on January 6, 2012. However, Judge O'Brien revoked his TSR on May 17, 2012, based on numerous violations of the conditions of Goodshield's TSR. Those violations included failure to comply with drug testing and treatment, use of controlled substances and failure to provide truthful information to United States Probation. See Doc. No. 50. Goodshield was sentenced to four months imprisonment and a new, three-year TSR. Id.
Goodshield started his new TSR on September 14, 2012. On March 27, 2013, the conditions of his TSR were modified to include two consecutive weekends in jail based on three admitted violations. See Doc. No. 72 at 2. Again, those violations included failure to comply with drug testing and treatment, use of controlled substances and failure to provide truthful information to Probation. Id. Goodshield served the required weekends in jail.
Unfortunately, more violations soon followed, including additional false statements to Probation, continued instances of failure to comply with drug testing and continued use of controlled substances. Id. at 2-4. A new petition to revoke Goodshield's TSR was filed on May 1, 2013. See Doc. No. 52. Judge O'Brien conducted a hearing on that petition on May 7, 2013. He ultimately continued the hearing based on information that Goodshield was willing to enter an intensive substance abuse treatment program in Burlington, Iowa. See Doc. No. 61.
For various reasons, Goodshield was never admitted to the program in Burlington. Instead, he continued (and, indeed, seems to have intensified) a course of conduct squarely at odds with the conditions of his TSR. The Petition includes a lengthy chronology of various events and violations that occurred after the May 7, 2013, hearing. See Doc. No. 72 at 4-8. Of particular note, those included Goodshield's failure to appear at a revocation hearing scheduled for October 9, 2013, and his subsequent arrest on December 1, 2013, after attempting to flee from a traffic stop. Goodshield was in possession of marijuana at the time of his arrest and, on December 10, 2013, plead guilty in the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County to the offenses of (a) possession of controlled substance - marijuana and (b) eluding. He was sentenced to sixty days in jail to be served concurrently with his sentence in this case. Id. at 7-8.
"A district court may revoke supervised release if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.'" United States v. Holt, 664 F.3d 1147, 1149 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)). The court's finding that a defendant has violated the conditions of supervised release is reviewed for clear error, while an order of revocation based on such a finding is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003).
I find by a preponderance of the evidence, based on his own admission, that Goodshield violated the terms and conditions of his supervised release as alleged in the Petition. Having so found, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) requires that I consider certain specified factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in making a determination as to whether Goodshield's term of supervised release should be terminated, extended, modified, or revoked. Although I am not required to cite each relevant factor in § 3553(a), see United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir. 2005), those factors are set forth below for the convenience of the district court in reviewing this Report and Recommendation:
The court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider -
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed -
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just ...