USA v. Pieper et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
BAJUNE MOSEBY (13)
§
§
§
§
§
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:11-CR-00127
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Now before the court is the request for revocation of Defendant Bajune Moseby’s
(“Defendant”) supervised release. After the District Judge referred the matter to this court for a
report and recommendation, the court conducted a hearing on December 8, 2025, to determine
whether Defendant violated his supervised release. Defendant appeared pro se. The Government
was represented by Paul Morris.
Defendant was sentenced on February 22, 2013, before The Honorable Marcia A. Crone
of the Eastern District of Texas after pleading guilty to the offense of Conspiracy to Possess with
the Intent to Distribute Marijuana, a Class A felony (Dkt. #1048, at p. 1, Sealed). This offense
carried a statutory maximum imprisonment term of life (Dkt. #1048, at p. 1, Sealed). The guideline
imprisonment range, based on a total offense level of 38 and a criminal history category of I, was
235 to 293 months (Dkt. #1048, at p. 1, Sealed). Defendant was subsequently sentenced to 293
months imprisonment followed by a 5-year term of supervised release subject to the standard
conditions of release, plus special conditions to include financial disclosure, substance abuse
treatment and testing, and a $100 special assessment (Dkt. #1048, at p. 1, Sealed). On August 11,
2016, pursuant to a Correction of Sentence on Remand (18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(1) and (2)), the
imprisonment portion of the sentence was reduced to 188 months (Dkt. #1048, at p. 1, Sealed). On
October 24, 2024, Defendant completed his period of imprisonment and began service of the
Case 4:11-cr-00127-SDJ-BD Document 1053 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
supervision term (Dkt. #1048, at p. 1, Sealed). On August 22, 2024, the case was reassigned to
The Honorable Sean D. Jordan, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas (Dkt. #1048,
at p. 1, Sealed).
On May 1, 2025, the United States Probation Officer executed a Petition for Warrant or
Summons for Offender Under Supervision (Dkt. #1038, Sealed). The Petition asserts that
Defendant violated four (4) conditions of supervision, as follows: (1) (standard) Defendant shall
report to the probation officer in a manner and shall submit a truthful and complete written report
within the first five days of each month.; (2) (standard) Defendant shall work regularly at a lawful
occupation, unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, training, or other acceptable
reasons; (3) (standard) Defendant shall notify the probation officer at least ten days prior to any
change in residence or employment; and (4) (standard) Defendant shall permit a probation officer
to visit him at any time at home or elsewhere and shall permit confiscation of any contraband
observed in plain view of the probation officer. (Dkt. #1038 at pp. 1-2, Sealed).
The Petition alleges that Defendant committed the following acts: (1) Defendant failed to
report to the U.S. Probation Office as directed since December 2024. He was instructed to report
to the office on March 25 and 27, 2025, and he failed to report as directed on both occasions; (2)
Defendant failed to provide any verification of his employment. In addition to this, on March 24,
2025, he did not grant the probation officer permission to visit his place of employment; (3) On
February 27, 2025, the U.S. Probation Officer attempted an at home visit at Defendant’s residence
on file. He was not present during the visit, and he failed to contact his officer. On March 14, 2025,
the U.S. Probation Officer attempted two additional visits, within the community, at addressees he
has associations with. He was not present at either residence. On March 23, 2025, the probation
officer spoke with Defendant via text message. The officer requested his residential information.
Case 4:11-cr-00127-SDJ-BD Document 1053 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Defendant failed to provide any information as requested. His whereabouts were unknown; (4)
Defendant notified the U.S. Probation Office that he is only available for home visits after 5:00
p.m. during the weekday and during the weekend. When attempting to schedule appointments with
him at work, he refused to give his officer the authority to visit him at his place of employment.
(Dkt. #1038 at pp. 1–2, Sealed).
Prior to the Government putting on its case at the final revocation hearing, Defendant
entered a plea of true to allegation 1 of the Petition. The Government moved to dismiss allegations
2, 3, and 4.1 At the revocation hearing on December 8, 2025, Defendant signed and dated the
“Consent to Revocation of Supervised Release and Waiver of Right to be Present and Speak at
Sentencing and Object to Findings of Magistrate Judge” (“Consent Form”) (Dkt. #1050). By
signing this form, Defendant:
(1) [Waived] [his] right to object to the proposed findings and recommendations of
the Magistrate Judge;
(2) [Consented] to revocation of [his] supervised release;
(3) [Consented] to imposition of the sentence, including all conditions of supervised
release, recommended by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation,
and
(4) [Waived] [his] right to be present and speak, and [his] right to have counsel [be]
present and speak, before the [D]istrict [J]udge impose[d] the recommended
sentence
(Dkt. #1050).
However, on December 11, 2025, Defendant filed a “Petition to Withdraw Agreement
made on December 8th, 2025 to Renegotiate New Agreement” (“Petition to Withdraw”) (Dkt.
#1051). Therein, Defendant stated that “[t]his petition to withdraw the agreement made on the 8th
of December 2025 Monday afternoon is to renegotiate the current agreement, which was to state
1 Defendant and the Government negotiated the following plea agreement: 6 months imprisonment to be followed
by a 1-year term of supervised release. Four months of Defendant’s supervised release to be served in a halfway
house. Defendant requested to be housed at the Bureau of Prisons facility in Terre Haute, Indiana.
Case 4:11-cr-00127-SDJ-BD Document 1053 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
that allegation 1 was true[,] to have allegations 2, 3, and 4 dropped, do six (6) months in Terre
[Haute], Indiana BOP (to include time since the 5th of September 2025), and to do 1 year of
probation with 120 days of that time in the halfway house” (Dkt. #1051, at pp. 1-2). Plaintiff added
that his “renegotiation terms are similar to the current agreement, but instead of six (6) months in
Terre [Haute], Indiana BOP, do nine (9) months (to include time since the 5th of September 2025),
and no probation” (Dkt. #1051, at p. 2).
The court construed this Petition to Withdraw as a motion to withdraw Defendant’s
previously signed Consent Form (See Dkt. #1050). Accordingly, the court conducted a hearing on
January 7, 2026, and advised Defendant of the court’s construction of his Petition to Withdraw. At
the conclusion of the hearing, Defendant confirmed that he wished to withdraw his Consent Form
and appear before the District Judge.
Accordingly, Defendant did not waive his right to allocute before the District Judge or his
right to object to the Report and Recommendation of this court. Having considered the Petition
and Defendant’s plea of true to allegation 1, the court finds that Defendant did violate his
conditions of supervised release.
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the court recommends that Defendant’s
supervised release be revoked and that he be committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons
for an additional term of imprisonment of six (6) months, with a 1-year term of supervised release
to follow. Four months of Defendant’s supervised release shall be served in a halfway house. All
prior conditions imposed in the original judgment are reimposed here.
The court recommends that allegations 2, 3, and 4 be dismissed.
Case 4:11-cr-00127-SDJ-BD Document 1053 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
The court also recommends that Defendant be housed in the Bureau of Prisons facility in
Terre Haute, Indiana if appropriate.
Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may
serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place
in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found.
An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate
judge is not specific.
Failure to file specific, written objections will bar the party from appealing the unobjected-
to factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted by the district
court, except upon grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that
such consequences will result from a failure to object. See Douglass v. United Services
Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other
grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Case 4:11-cr-00127-SDJ-BD Document 1053 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>