UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARVIN CARPENTER (2024)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On November 22, 2022, the Probation Office filed a petition requesting that Judge Jackson issue a summons and hold a hearing on probation violation because of an arrest that occurred in Maryland. On November 23, 2022, Judge Jackson issued the summons.

On January 20, 2023, the defendant appeared before Judge Jackson for a Hearing on Violation, which Judge Jackson converted to a Status Hearing. At the hearing, the parties discussed the outstanding violation and certain extenuating circumstances surrounding the arrest. Judge Jackson referred the matter to the undersigned and directed periodic reentry progress hearings. Judge Jackson ordered that the Defendant reside at his prior address and follow all standard conditions of supervised release, including staying in contact with the Probation Office. Judge Jackson added an additional condition that the Defendant participate in Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (CBT). Judge Jackson warned the Defendant that failure to comply with the conditions of release would lead to sentencing on the violation.

The undersigned held three reentry progress hearings. At the time of November 2022 petition, the Defendant was unemployed. Shortly thereafter, Defendant began working fulltime at Wildfork Foods and he later took on a second part-time job at Home Depot. Over the course of subsequent hearings, the undersigned and Probation Officer Ian Bates commended the Defendant for maintaining this taxing schedule. Defendant was proud to be working two jobs and expressed that he felt he had finally found his place in society.

On June 1, 2023, the Probation Office filed a supplemental petition. This petition noted that the Defendant was maintaining employment with Wildfork Foods and Home Depot, had a stable residence, and had completed a substance abuse assessment. Due to the Defendant's busy work schedule, there was initially no viable option for a CBT program. However, the undersigned worked with Probation Officer Bates to enroll the Defendant into a new CBT program that had previously only been available to Superior Court defendants. This program allows for remote treatment and became available in late 2023. Probation Officer Bates has advised that the Defendant has begun the program and has fully embraced all requirements therein.

The Defendant has since met every benchmark set by the undersigned. First, the Defendant consistently tested negative on all drug screenings and successfully completed a substance abuse assessment. Second, the Defendant was fully engaged with the CBT programming and successfully completed it. Third, the Defendant has remained in stable housing. Fourth, the Defendant has found and maintained lawful employment. Fifth, the Defendant appeared for every hearing and was respectful to Court staff, to the AUSA, and to the Probation Officer.

On January 31, 2024, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation. See R. & R. 1, ECF No. 113. The undersigned recommended:

a finding that the Defendant violated his conditions of release as stated in the November 22, 2022 petition. The Defendant's supervision must be revoked based on this admission. However, a sentence of time served should be imposed for the revocation. Defendant should continue on supervision with no change to his conditions of release.

Id. at 3. The undersigned further noted that the Defendant was an excellent candidate for early termination of supervision given his continued success. See id. at 2 n.1. Indeed, the Defendant has been successful—to levels the undersigned has not seen in any other case—over the past nearly two years. The parties concurred with this recommendation and neither party filed an objection.

On March 26, 2024, Judge Jackson issued a Minute Order in response to the Report and Recommendation. Judge Jackson identified that the Report and Recommendation left ambiguity in the proposal as follows:

if the defendant's supervision is revoked in connection with the finding that he violated his conditions of release, there would no longer be a term of supervision on which he could continue. Thus, there would need to be a hearing at which the defendant was sentenced for the violation. At that time, the Court could impose a sentence of time served and a period of supervised release that could extend until March 15, 2025, when the original term of supervision was set to conclude, or it could be for a different period of time. Given the defendant's sustained success and ongoing compliance with the terms of his release, the Court will vacate its Minute Order of March 5, 2024 [adopting the Report and Recommendation].

Min. Order (Mar. 26, 2024). Judge Jackson then referred the matter back to the undersigned for an updated Report and Recommendation with any appropriate revisions.

The undersigned subsequently had multiple calls with the assigned Probation Officer to resolve this question. On September 13, 2024, the undersigned held a hearing to review any updated information and assess the position of the parties. There was no new substantive information, other than Mr. Carpenter has continued to thrive. The parties jointly recommended that the Court revoke the Defendant, sentence him to a period of time served, and not impose any further supervision given his continued success.

The undersigned again commends the Defendant for accomplishing the goals the Court set forth for him. The Defendant has been accountable and is fully on the right path. The undersigned's assessment is based not only on the Defendant's track record but also on personal observation and assessment. The Defendant has shown the level of maturity and responsibility that he will need to succeed post-supervision. Critically, the Defendant has accepted responsibility: he admitted the supervised release violation, having previously pled guilty to the Maryland charge.

As such, the undersigned recommends a finding that the Defendant violated his conditions of release as stated in the November 22, 2022 petition. The Defendant's supervision must be revoked based on this admission. However, a sentence of time served should be imposed for the revocation with no additional period of supervision.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   Per the Probation Office, no hearing is needed to adopt this Recommendation, as no additional supervision is ordered. Adoption of the Report and Recommendation would close this case.

ZIA M. FARUQUI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE