USA v. Stoker-Bonilla

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
AMARIE ALEXIS STOKER-BONILLA
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NUMBER 1:24-CR-00090-MAC
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION FOR WARRANT
FOR OFFENDER UNDER SUPERVISION
Pending is a “Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision” filed
December 19, 2025, alleging that the Defendant, Amarie Alexis Stoker-Bonilla, violated her
conditions of supervised release. This matter is referred to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson,
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); E.D. TEX. CRIM. R. CR-59.
I. The Original Conviction and Sentence
Amarie Alexis Stoker-Bonilla was sentenced on March 26, 2024, before The Honorable
David S. Morales, of the Southern District of Texas, after pleading guilty to the offense of
Conspiracy to Transport an Undocumented Alien, a Class C felony. This offense carried a
statutory maximum imprisonment term of 10 years. The guideline imprisonment range, based on
a total offense level of 13 and a criminal history category of I, was 12 to 18 months. Amarie
Alexis Stoker-Bonilla was subsequently sentenced to a 3-year term of probation subject to the
standard conditions of release, plus special conditions to include substance abuse treatment and
Case 1:24-cr-00090-MAC-CLS Document 20 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

-2-
testing; mental health treatment and testing; compliance with mental health medication; 30 hours
of community service; and a $100 special assessment.
II. The Period of Supervision
On March 26, 2024, Amarie Alexis Stoker-Bonilla began service of the probation term.
On September 18, 2024, jurisdiction was transferred to the Eastern District of Texas and this
case was assigned to United States District Judge Marcia A. Crone. On January 29, 2025, the
probation term was revoked, and she was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment followed by a 2-
year term of supervised release, subject to the standard conditions of release plus the reimposed
special conditions. On June 6, 2025, Ms. Stoker-Bonilla completed her term of imprisonment
and began the term of supervised release.
III. The Petition
United States Probation filed the Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision
raising five allegations. The petition alleges that Amarie Alexis Stoker-Bonilla violated the
following conditions of release:
Allegation 1. You must refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance.
Allegation 2. After initially reporting to the probation office, you will receive
instructions from the court or the probation officer about how and when you must
report to the probation officer, and you must report to the probation officer as
instructed.
Allegation 3. You must live at a place approved by the probation officer. If you
plan to change where you live or anything about your living arrangements (such
as the people you live with), you 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, you must notify the probation officer within 72
hours of becoming aware of a change or expected change.
Allegation 4. You defendant must pay to the United States a special assessment of
$100, which is due immediately.
Case 1:24-cr-00090-MAC-CLS Document 20 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

-3-
Allegation 5. You must participate in a program of testing and treatment for
substance abuse and follow the rules and regulations of that program until
discharged. The probation officer, in consultation with the treatment provider,
will supervise your participation in the program.
IV. Proceedings
On February 12, 2026, 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 regarding the revocation. The Defendant agreed to
plead “true” to the second allegation that claimed she failed to report to her probation officer as
instructed. In return, the parties agreed that she should serve a term of 8 months’ imprisonment
with no supervised release to follow.
V. Principles of Analysis
According to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), the court 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, 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,
except that a defendant whose term is revoked under this paragraph may not be required to serve
on any such revocation more than five years in prison if the offense that resulted in the term of
supervised release is a Class A felony, more than three years if such offense is a Class B felony,
more than two years in prison if such offense is a Class C or D felony, or more than one year in
Case 1:24-cr-00090-MAC-CLS Document 20 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

-4-
any other case. The original offense of conviction was a Class C felony, therefore, the maximum
imprisonment sentence is 2 years.
According to U.S.S.G. § 7C1.1(a)1, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence
that the Defendant violated conditions of supervision by failing to report to her probation officer
as instructed, the Defendant will be guilty of committing a Grade C violation. U.S.S.G. § 7C1.3
indicates that upon a finding of non-compliance, the court should conduct an individualized
assessment and that revocation is generally appropriate for a Grade A violation, often appropriate
for a Grade B violation, and may be appropriate for a Grade C violation.
U.S.S.G. § 7C1.5 provides that in the case of revocation of supervised release based on a
Grade C violation and a criminal history category of I, the policy statement imprisonment range
is 3 to 9 months.
U.S.S.G. § 7C1.4(a) states that the court shall conduct an individualized assessment to
determine the appropriate length of the term of imprisonment, given the recommended range of
imprisonment set forth in § 7C1.5.
In determining the Defendant’s sentence, the court shall consider:
1. The nature and circumstance of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant; see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1);
2. The need for the sentence imposed: to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and to provide the
Defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, other
corrective treatment in the most effective manner; see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553 (a)(2)(B)-
(D);
3. Applicable guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,
for the appropriate application of the provisions when modifying or revoking
supervised release pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(3), that are in effect on the date the
defendant is sentenced; see 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(4); see also 28 U.S.C. § 924(A)(3);
1. All of the policy statements in Chapter 7 that govern sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release
are non-binding. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 7 Pt. A; United States v. Bradberry, 360 F. App’x. 508, 509 (5th Cir. 2009).
Case 1:24-cr-00090-MAC-CLS Document 20 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

-5-
4. Any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 994(a)(2), that is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; see 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5); and
5. The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar
records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).
6. The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e) and 3553(a).
VI. Application
The Defendant pled “true” to the petition’s allegation that she violated a standard
condition of release that she failed to report to her probation officer as instructed. Based upon
the Defendant’s plea of “true” to this allegation of the Petition for Warrant or Summons for
Offender Under Supervision and U.S.S.G. § 7C1.3, the undersigned finds that the Defendant
violated a condition of supervised release.
The undersigned has carefully conducted an individualized assessment and considered
each of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The Defendant’s violation is a Grade C
violation, and the criminal history category is I. The policy statement range in the Guidelines
Manual is 3 to 9 months. The Defendant did not comply with the conditions of supervision and
has demonstrated an unwillingness to adhere to conditions of supervision.
Consequently, incarceration appropriately addresses the Defendant’s violation. The
sentencing objectives of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation along with the
aforementioned statutory sentencing factors will best be served by a prison sentence of 8 months
with no supervised release to follow. Given the time previously served and this new term of
imprisonment covering most of the supervision term originally imposed, the court finds that
another term of supervised release is not warranted in this case.
Case 1:24-cr-00090-MAC-CLS Document 20 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

-6-
VII. Recommendations
The court should find that the Defendant violated the allegation in the petition that she
violated a standard condition of release by failing to report to her probation officer as instructed.
The petition should be granted, and the Defendant’s supervised release should be revoked
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583. The Defendant should be sentenced to a term of 8 months’
imprisonment with no supervised release to follow. The Defendant requested to serve her prison
term at the Federal Correctional Institution in Bryan, Texas. The Defendant’s request should be
accommodated, if possible.
VIII. Objections
At the close of the revocation hearing, the Defendant, defense counsel, and counsel for
the government each signed a standard form waiving their right to object to the proposed
findings and recommendations contained in this report, consenting to revocation of supervised
release, and consenting to the imposition of the above sentence recommended in this report
(involving all conditions of supervised release, if applicable). The Defendant also waived her
right to be present and speak and have her counsel present and speak before the district court
imposes the recommended sentence. Therefore, the court may act on this report and
recommendation immediately.
.
___________________________________
Christine L Stetson
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SIGNED this the 12th day of February, 2026.
Case 1:24-cr-00090-MAC-CLS Document 20 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>