REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION FOR WARRANT FOR OFFENDER UNDER SUPERVISION
ZACK HAWTHORN, Magistrate Judge.
Pending is a "Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision" filed September 5, 2013, alleging that the Defendant, Henry Lee Armstrong, violated his conditions of supervised release. This matter is referred to the undersigned 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); Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
I. The Original Conviction and Sentence
The Defendant was sentenced on November 9, 2009, before the Honorable Thad Heartfield, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, after pleading guilty to the offense of Felon in Possession of a Firearm, a Class C Felony. The offense carried a statutory maximum imprisonment term of 10 years. The guideline imprisonment range, based on a total offense level of 17 and a criminal history category of V, was 46 to 57 months. The Defendant was sentenced to 52 months' imprisonment, followed by three (3) year term of supervised release subject to the standard conditions of release, plus special conditions to include: substance abuse testing and treatment, mental health treatment, sex offender registration, and no contact with minors age 18 years old or less unless supervised by two adults authorized by the probation officer; and a $100 special assessment.
II. The Period of Supervision
On February 1, 2013, Armstrong completed his original period of imprisonment and began service of the three (3) year term of supervised release.
III. The Petition
United States Probation filed the Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision alleging that he violated the following conditions of his supervised release: 1 and 2) the Defendant shall report to the probation officer as directed by the Court or probation officer, and shall submit a truthful and complete written report within the first five days of each month; 3) the Defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, training, or other acceptable reasons; 4) the Defendant shall participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug abuse, under the guidance and direction of the United States Probation Office, until such time as the Defendant is released from the program by the probation officer; 5) under the guidance and direction of the United States Probation Office, the Defendant shall participate in a sex offender program which may include the application of physiological testing instruments, and shall pay any costs associated therewith; 6) the Defendant shall report to the probation officer as directed by the Court or probation officer and shall submit a truthful and complete written report within the first five days of each month.
On November 12, 2013, 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.
At the revocation hearing, counsel for the government and the Defendant announced an agreement as to a recommended disposition. The Defendant agreed to plead "true" to the first allegation, which asserted that he violated a standard condition of supervised release. The Petition alleges that "Mr. Armstrong failed to submit a monthly report for the months of April and May 2013 within the first five (5) days of the month. At the time of this writing, Mr. Armstrong has not submitted said monthly reports."
The undersigned recommends that the Court revoke the Defendant's supervised release and impose a sentence of ten (10) months' imprisonment, and an eighteen (18) month term of supervised release.
V. Principles of Analysis
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, it 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. 18 ...