FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO REVOKE DEFENDANT'S SUPERVISED RELEASE
KEITH STRONG, Magistrate Judge.
Ms. Denny was accused of violating her conditions of supervised release by failing to report for drug testing, failing to notify her probation officer prior to a change of residence, and failing to fulfill her employment requirements. She admitted to the violations. Ms. Denny should be incarcerated for 9 months, with no supervised release to follow.
Ms. Denny pled guilty in 2010 to Burglary. CD 37. She was sentenced to 22 months imprisonment, with three years supervised release to follow. CD 38. Ms. Denny had her supervised release revoked in June 2012 for failure to report to her probation officer and failing to notify her probation officer before changing addresses. CD 49. She was ordered to spend 6 months in prison, to be followed by 30 months supervised release. CD 49. Ms. Denny began her current term of supervised release on December 6, 2012. CD 52. On June 19, 2013, the United States Probation Office filed a "Report on Offender Under Supervision." CD 51. The report alleged that Ms. Denny violated her supervised release conditions by consuming alcohol and methamphetamine. However, the report recommended giving Ms. Denny another chance by continuing supervision, and Ms. Denny's release was not revoked at that time. CD 51.
The United States Probation Office filed a petition on August 13, 2013, asking the court to revoke Ms. Denny's supervised release. CD 46. The petition alleged that Ms. Denny violated three conditions of her supervised release. It alleged she 1) violated Special Condition #1 by failing to report for drug testing on July 25, August 7, and August 9, 2013; 2) violated Standard Condition #6 by failing to notify her probation officer prior to changing her address, which her probation officer discovered when he conducted a home visit on July 29, 2013; and 3) violated Standard Condition #5 by losing her job for failure to report as scheduled, and neglecting to inform her probation officer of her termination. CD 52. Based on the petition, the undersigned issued a warrant for Ms. Denny's arrest. CD 53.
Ms. Denny was arrested on August 13, 2013. She made an initial appearance before the undersigned on August 15. She was accompanied by Federal Defender Evangelo Arvanetes, who was appointed to represent her. Assistant United States Attorney Laura Weiss represented the United States. Ms. Denny said she had read and understood the petition. Ms. Wiess stated that Ms. Denny could be imprisoned for up to 24 months if her supervised release is revoked. Mr. Arvanetes agreed. Ms. Denny waived her right to a preliminary hearing, and said she would like to proceed immediately to a revocation hearing.
The undersigned described the Findings and Recommendations procedure, explaining that the undersigned would recommend a disposition to United States District Judge Dana L. Christensen, and Judge Christensen would decide whether to revoke her supervised release and, if so, what sanction to impose. Ms. Denny was informed of her right to object to the recommendation, and to request another hearing from Judge Christensen. The revocation hearing commenced. CD 55.
Ms. Denny appeared at the revocation hearing with her attorney, Mr. Arvanetes. Ms. Weiss represented the United States. Ms. Denny admitted to violating her conditions of supervised release, as set forth in the petition, but not to an alleged state law violation described in an explanatory section of the petition. The undersigned informed the parties that the alleged crime would not be factored into the recommendation.
The undersigned believes Ms. Denny's admissions are sufficient to establish supervised release violations, and that the violations justify revocation of her supervised release. Ms. Denny's violation Grade is C, his criminal history category is I, and his underlying offense is a Class C felony. Under those circumstances, she could be ordered to serve up to 24 months in prison. The United States Sentencing Guidelines call for 3 to 9 months imprisonment. Ms. Denny could also be ordered to spend up to 30 months on supervised release, less any custodial time imposed. Ms. Weiss and Mr. Arvanetes agreed with those calculations.
Mr. Arvanetes requested a sanction consisting of limited custodial time, to be followed by supervised release with a condition that Ms. Denny reside in a pre-release center. Mr. Avanetes explained that Ms. Denny wanted to establish a better life for herself in Great Falls, and had attempted to do so. Her effort was unsuccessful in part because of financial struggles that caused her to lose her apartment and her transportation to work. Mr. Arvanetes said residing in a pre-release center could help Ms. Denny establish a foundation on which to build in her next attempt. Mr. Arvanetes acknowledged that Ms. Denny previously ...