USA v. Hanna **Jurisdiction returned from SD/TX**

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MICAH CHARLES HANNA
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NUMBER 1:21-CR-00054-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 2, 2025, alleging that the Defendant, Micah Charles Hanna, violated his 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
Micah Charles Hanna was sentenced on February 15, 2022, before The Honorable Thad
Heartfield, 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 10 years. The guideline imprisonment range, based on a total offense
level of 17 and a criminal history category of IV, was 37 to 46 months. Micah Charles Hanna
was subsequently sentenced to 42 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 and mental health treatment; and a $100 special assessment.
Case 1:21-cr-00054-MAC-ZJH Document 42 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

-2-
II. The Period of Supervision
On June 18, 2024, Micah Charles Hanna completed his period of imprisonment and
began service of the supervision term. On August 23, 2024, jurisdiction in this case was
transferred to the Southern District of Texas and assigned to U.S. District Judge Alfred Bennett.
On February 27, 2025, Hanna’s term of supervised release was revoked, and he was
sentenced to 3 months imprisonment less credit for 2 months, for a total of 1 month
imprisonment, followed by a 1-year term of supervised release. On March 26, 2025, Hanna
completed his period of imprisonment and began service of the new supervision term.
On December 1, 2025, jurisdiction in this case was transferred back to the Eastern
District of Texas and assigned to U.S. District Judge Marcia A. Crone.
III. The Petition
United States Probation filed the Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision
raising two allegations. The petition alleges that Micah Charles Hanna violated the following
conditions of release:
Allegation 1. You must refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance.
Allegation 2. 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. You must pay any cost
associated with treatment and testing.
IV. Proceedings
On February 17, 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.
Case 1:21-cr-00054-MAC-ZJH Document 42 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

-3-
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 he failed to report for random drug testing as
required. In return, the parties agreed that he 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
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 for random drug testing
as required, 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
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 1:21-cr-00054-MAC-ZJH Document 42 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

-4-
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 IV, the policy statement imprisonment
range is 6 to 12 months.
U.S.S.G. § 7C1.5, Application note 2, states that upon a finding that a defendant violated
a condition of supervised release by being in possession of a controlled substance or firearm or
by refusing to comply with a condition requiring drug testing, the court is required to revoke
supervised release and impose a sentence that includes a term of imprisonment pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3583(g).
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.
U.S.S.G. § 7C1.3(b) indicates upon a finding of a violation for which revocation is
required by statute (18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)), the court shall revoke supervised release.
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);
Case 1:21-cr-00054-MAC-ZJH Document 42 Filed 02/17/26 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 he violated a special condition
of release that he failed to report for random drug testing as required. 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 IV. The policy statement range in the Guidelines
Manual is 6 to 12 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. The court finds that a term of 8 months combined with his
prior time served on supervised release properly addresses the nature of his violation without an
additional term of supervision.
Case 1:21-cr-00054-MAC-ZJH Document 42 Filed 02/17/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

-6-
VII. Recommendations
The court should find that the Defendant violated the allegation in the petition that he
violated a special condition of release by failing to report for random drug testing as required.
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.
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 17th day of February, 2026.
Case 1:21-cr-00054-MAC-ZJH Document 42 Filed 02/17/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>