USA v. Wright

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	§
§
V. 	§ 	CASE NO. 4:22-CR-247-RWS-BD
§
LATRAY DEMON WRIGHT (1) 	§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On January 30, 2026, the Court held a hearing on the Government’s Petition for Warrant
or Summons for Offender Under Supervision. Dkt. No. 52. The Government was represented by
Assistant United States Attorney Adrian Garcia. Defendant was represented by Sarah Jacobs.
BACKGROUND
Latray Demon Wright (“Defendant”) was sentenced on April 30, 2024, before the
Honorable Sean D. Jordan of the Eastern District of Texas after pleading guilty to the offense of
Possession of a Firearm by a Prohibited Person, a Class C felony. This offense carried a statutory
maximum imprisonment term of 15 years. The guideline imprisonment range, based on a total
offense level of 15 and a criminal history category of IV, was 30 to 37 months. Defendant was
subsequently sentenced to 33 months imprisonment followed by a 3-year term of supervised
release subject to the standard conditions of release, plus special conditions to include financial
disclosure, substance abuse testing and treatment, mental health treatment, and a $100 special
assessment. On June 27, 2025, Defendant completed his imprisonment and began service of his
supervision term.
PETITION TO REVOKE
In its Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision (Dkt. No. 52), the
Government alleges Defendant violated the following:
Case 4:22-cr-00247-RWS-BD Document 64 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
1) Defendant must participate in any combination of psychiatric, psychological, or
mental health treatment programs and follow the rules and regulations of that program,
until discharged. This includes taking any mental health medication as prescribed by
Defendant’s treating physician. The probation officer, in consultation with the treatment
provider, will supervise Defendant’s participation in the program. Defendant must pay any
cost associated with treatment and testing. Specifically, the Government alleges that, following
a self-disclosure of attempted suicide, on October 26, 2025, Defendant was instructed to schedule
an evaluation through Lakes Regional MHMR in Paris, Texas so an appropriate level of care could
be determined, including whether he may benefit from prescribed mental health medication. He
was previously prescribed Lexapro and Seroquel through Lakes Regional MHMR in Paris in
approximately 2019 and reported the medication regimen was effective in alleviating his
symptoms. Despite this history and the directive provided, Defendant failed to follow through with
completing 	the required 	evaluation, 	and 	as 	a 	result, 	failed 	to 	participate in 	psychiatric,
psychological, or mental health treatment. Defendant was instructed to participate in integrated
treatment for dual disorders (substance abuse and mental health) treatment at New Focus, Paris,
Texas. He failed to attend his scheduled mental health treatment sessions at New Focus
Counseling, Paris, Texas on November 13, 20, and 24, 2025. On November 24, 2025, Defendant
was unsuccessfully discharged from treatment due to excessive missed and/or no-showed
appointments. As such, he failed to participate in the mental health treatment program
2) Defendant must participate in a program of testing and treatment for substance
abuse and follow the rules of that program until discharged. The probation officer, in
consultation with the treatment provider, will supervise Defendant’s participation in the
program. Defendant must pay any cost associated with treatment and testing. Specifically,
Case 4:22-cr-00247-RWS-BD Document 64 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
the Government alleges that Defendant was instructed to participate in integrated treatment for
dual disorders (substance abuse and mental health) treatment at New Focus, Paris, Texas.
Defendant failed to attend his scheduled substance abuse treatment sessions at New Focus
Counseling, Paris, Texas on November 13, 20, and 24, 2025. On November 24, 2025, Defendant
was unsuccessfully discharged from treatment due to excessive missed and/or no-showed
appointments. As such, he failed to participate in the mental health treatment program. Defendant
failed to report for drug testing at Texas and Oklahoma Occupational Medicine in Paris, Texas on
October 24, November 7, December 5, and December 12, 2025, as part of the U.S. Probation
Office’s random drug testing program.
3) Defendant must follow the instructions of the probation officer related to the
conditions of supervision. Specifically, the Government alleges that, on October 26, 2025, during
a field visit at his place of employment in Paris, Texas, the probation officer instructed Defendant
to schedule a mental health evaluation with Lakes Regional MHMR, Paris, Texas due to his recent
suicidal disclosure, history of prescribed mental health medication, and ongoing concerns
regarding his overall mental health. Defendant pushed back on the need for an evaluation or being
prescribed mental health medication. He was advised this was a non-negotiable directive and
instructed to schedule the MHMR evaluation by October 31, 2025. He failed to comply with this
directive. Additionally, after the deadline passed, he was reinstructed to schedule the MHMR
evaluation. He later reported he contacted MHMR and during the screening process told them he
did not want services nor treatment, and as a result, the evaluation was never scheduled or
completed. This information has not yet been verified. As of this writing, the U.S. Probation office
has not been able to obtain confirmation from the provider, and no evaluation has been scheduled
or completed with Lakes Regional MHMR.
Case 4:22-cr-00247-RWS-BD Document 64 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
4) Defendant must refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance.
Specifically, the Government alleges that, on August 27, 2025, Defendant reported to the U.S.
Probation Office in Plano, Texas and submitted a urine sample which tested positive for marijuana.
He denied using marijuana. The specimen was subsequently confirmed positive by the national
lab. Furthermore, the specimen was diluted. On October 13, 2025, Defendant submitted a urine
specimen at Texas and Oklahoma Occupational Medicine in Paris, Texas which tested positive for
marijuana. Upon questioning, he admitted to using marijuana prior to his attempt to take his own
life. The specimen was subsequently confirmed positive by the national lab. Furthermore, the
specimen was diluted. On November 18, 2025, Defendant submitted a urine specimen at Texas
and Oklahoma Occupational Medicine (TOOMS) in Paris, Texas which tested positive for
marijuana. The specimen was subsequently confirmed positive by the national lab. Additionally,
a separate request was submitted to the lab to determine whether the November 18, 2025, positive
result was residual or new use, and the lab determined it was new use.
5) Defendant must answer truthfully the questions asked by his probation officer.
Specifically, the Government alleges that Defendant failed to submit a urine specimen at TOOMS,
Paris, TX, on November 7, 2025. According to text messages sent by him on this date, he left
because the process was taking too long. On November 18, 2025, when contacted to discuss this
incident, Defendant advised he lost his job due to having to report for the random urine specimen.
According to Defendant, he arrived late to work on November 7th because of the delay at the drug
testing location and was subsequently terminated. However, follow-up with the store manager at
his employment, CEFCO Convenience Store #1098, revealed Defendant was untruthful about
reason for termination. The store manager advised Defendant was terminated due to multiple
write-ups for the following: being on his phone while working the register, complaints from
Case 4:22-cr-00247-RWS-BD Document 64 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
customers of him smelling like marijuana on November 8th, and theft on November 15th.
Additionally, on October 23, 2025, Defendant reported, during a telephone conversation, he was
on a 30-day unpaid suspension with Campbell's Soup & Silgan Can Company, Paris, Texas for
moving a phone charger believed to have been stolen. However, contact with this employer
revealed Defendant was terminated on October 17, 2025, for theft of another employee's property
and utilizing another employee's key card to badge in and out of areas in the warehouse. Defendant
failed to answer truthfully the questions regarding his employment asked by the probation officer.
6) Defendant must work full time (at least 30 hours per week) at a lawful type of
employment, unless the probation officer excuses Defendant from doing so. If Defendant
does not have full-time employment, he must try to find full-time employment, unless the
probation officer excuses Defendant from doing so. If Defendant plans to change where he
works or anything about his work (such as his position or job responsibilities), Defendant
must notify the probation officer at least 10 days before the change. If notifying the
probation officer at least 10 days in advance is not possible due to unanticipated
circumstances, Defendant must notify the probation officer within 72 hours of becoming
aware of a change or expected change. Specifically, the Government alleges that, on September
22, 2025, Defendant secured employment with Campbell's Soup & Silgan Can Company. On
October 17, 2025, Defendant was terminated for theft of another employee's property and utilizing
another employee's key card to badge in and out of areas in the warehouse. Defendant failed to
notify the U.S. Probation Office of his change in employment until October 23, 2025, where he
disclosed, he was on a 30-day unpaid suspension. As such, he failed to notify the U.S. Probation
Office of his change in employment in the manner required by his conditions of supervision.
Case 4:22-cr-00247-RWS-BD Document 64 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
7) If Defendant is arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer, Defendant
must notify the probation officer within 72 hours. Specifically, the Government alleges that,
on September 4, 2025, the Reno Police Department in Reno, Texas responded to a call at an
apartment complex regarding a narcotics violation. The Lamar County Sheriff's Office also
assisted with this call. Officers were advised Defendant and another person were reported to be
inside an apartment where they were not supposed to be, smoking marijuana, and posting a video
on Facebook. Officers made contact with Defendant and the other individual in the parking lot,
and both reported they were at the residence to clean out the tenant's belongings and had
permission to be there. Officers confirmed by telephone they were allowed to be in the
apartment, and no arrests were made. Defendant failed to report this law enforcement contact as
required. Additionally, on November 15, 2025, the Paris Police Department trespassed Defendant
from his former employer, CEFCO Convenience Store #1098, at the employer's request.
Defendant failed to report this law enforcement contact as required.
RECOMMENDATION
The Court scheduled a final revocation hearing January 30, 2026. At the hearing, the Court
reviewed the alleged violations of the above conditions with Defendant. Consenting to the
undersigned’s taking the plea, Defendant admitted as true the allegations as set forth in the petition.
Based upon Defendant’s plea of true, the Court finds Defendant did violate his conditions
of supervised release as alleged in the U.S. Probation Office’s petition. Counsel announced the
parties had agreed upon the sentence to be imposed. The Court, having considered the agreement
as well as the applicable U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines, agreed with the parties’
proposed sentence and recommended sentence be imposed as follows: Pursuant to the Sentencing
Reform Act of 1984, it is recommended that Defendant be committed to the custody of the Bureau
Case 4:22-cr-00247-RWS-BD Document 64 Filed 02/03/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of six (6) months, with a twelve (12) month term of
supervised release to follow, subject to the following conditions.
Defendant must report to the probation office in the federal judicial district where
Defendant is authorized to reside within 72 hours of his release from imprisonment, unless the
probation officer instructs Defendant to report to a different probation office or within a different
time frame.
While on supervised release, Defendant must not commit another federal, state, or local
crime.
Defendant must refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. Defendant must
submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and at least two periodic
drug tests, thereafter, as determined by the Court.
Defendant must comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by the Court.
Additionally, the Court finds the special conditions originally imposed by the Court are still
relevant and are reimposed as follows.
Defendant shall provide to the probation officer any requested financial information.
Defendant must participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug abuse and follow
the rules and regulations of that program until discharged. The probation officer, in consultation
with the treatment provider, will supervise Defendant’s participation in the program. Defendant
must pay any cost associated with treatment and testing.
Defendant must participate in any combination of psychiatric, psychological, or mental
health treatment programs, and follow the rules and regulations of that program, until discharged.
The probation officer, in consultation with the treatment provider, will supervise Defendant’s
participation in the program. Defendant must pay any cost associated with treatment and testing.
Case 4:22-cr-00247-RWS-BD Document 64 Filed 02/03/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Based on the foregoing, it is
RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s plea of true to the allegations set forth above in the
petition be ACCEPTED. It is further
RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s supervised release be REVOKED. It is further
RECOMMENDED that Defendant be committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons
to be imprisoned for a term of six (6) months, with a twelve (12) month term of supervised release
to follow, subject to the above-listed conditions.
The parties were informed of the right to file objections to the recommendations as set forth
above. The parties waived their objections.
Defendant was also advised that he has the right to be present with counsel, to speak on his
own behalf, and to have counsel speak on his behalf before any additional sentence is imposed.
Defendant signed a written waiver of his right to be present and speak, and his right to have counsel
present and speak, before the district judge imposes the recommended sentence..
________________________________________
Don Bush
United States Magistrate Judge
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 3rd day of February, 2026.
Case 4:22-cr-00247-RWS-BD Document 64 Filed 02/03/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>