USA v. Rodriguez

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:18-cr-00235-SDJ-BD Document90_ Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 6 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §
§
Vv. § CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:18-CR-
§ 00235-SDJ-BD-1
JASON RODRIGUEZ §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Now before the court is the request for revocation of Defendant Jason Rodriguez’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 February 5, 2026, to determine
whether Defendant violated his supervised release. Defendant was represented by Ryne Sandel.
The Government was represented by Abe McGlothin.

Defendant was sentenced on November 22, 2019, before The Honorable Sean D. Jordan of
the Eastern District of Texas after pleading guilty to the offense of Felon in Possession of a
Firearm, a Class C felony (Dkt. #61, at p. 1, Sealed). This offense carried a statutory maximum
imprisonment term of 10 years (Dkt. #61, at p. 1, Sealed). The guideline imprisonment range,
based on a total offense level of 17 and a criminal history category of VI, was 51 to 63 months
(Dkt. #61, at p. 1, Sealed). Defendant was subsequently sentenced to 63 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, mental health treatment, and acquiring a high
school equivalency certificate (Dkt. #61, at p. 1, Sealed). On April 7, 2023, Defendant completed
his period of imprisonment and began service of the supervision term (Dkt. #61, at p. 1, Sealed).

On May 23, 2024, Judge Jordan revoked Defendant’s supervised release after Defendant

pleaded true to allegations that included possessing methamphetamine and marijuana; failing to

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

2
obtain employment; and failing to participate in mental health treatment (Dkt. #61, at p. 1, Sealed).
Defendant was subsequently sentenced to a term of 12-months imprisonment followed by a 24-
month term of supervised release (Dkt. #61, at p. 1, Sealed). The first 12-months of Defendant’s
supervised release was to be served at an in-patient treatment facility with the remaining 12-
months to be served on conditions of release (Dkt. #61, at p. 1, Sealed). Defendant was released
from imprisonment on December 16, 2024, and began his term of supervised release (Dkt. #61, at
p. 1, Sealed).
On March 26, 2025, the United States Probation Officer executed a Petition for Warrant or
Summons for Offender Under Supervision (Dkt. #58, Sealed). The Petition asserts that Defendant
violated six (6) conditions of supervision, as follows: (1) (mandatory) Defendant must not commit
another federal, state, or local crime; (2) (mandatory) Defendant must refrain from any unlawful
use of a controlled substance; (3) (standard) Defendant must live at a place approved by the
probation officer. If Defendant plans to change where he lives or anything about his living
arrangements (such as the people he lives with), he 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, Defendant must notify the probation officer within 72 hours of
becoming aware of a change or expected change; (4) (standard) Defendant must work full time (at
least 30 hours per week) at a lawful type of employment, unless the probation officer excuses him
from doing so. If he does not have full-time employment, he must try to find full-time employment,
unless the probation officer excuses him from doing so. If he plans to change where he works or
anything about his work (such as his position or his job responsibilities), he 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
Case 4:18-cr-00235-SDJ-BD Document 90 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
probation officer within 72 hours of becoming aware of a change or expected change; (5)
(standard) After initially reporting to the probation office, Defendant will receive instructions from
the court or the probation officer about how and when he must report to the probation officer, and
he must report to the probation officer as instructed; and (6) (special) 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 his 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 (Dkt. #58 at pp. 1–3, Sealed).
The Petition alleges that Defendant committed the following acts: (1) On January 26, 2025,
the McKinney, Texas, Police Department responded to the McKinney Inn Hotel located at 1431
N. Tennessee Street, McKinney, TX 	in reference to a 911 hangup call for service. Dispatch
advised an uncooperative male, later identified as Defendant, had been calling into dispatch and
not responding to call takers, as well as using profane language toward them. Upon arrival, police
knocked on the door and Defendant opened the door and subsequently asked police for a ride. It
was apparent that there was no emergency, and Defendant solely wanted a ride as his bag was
packed by the door. Defendant was subsequently charged with Silent or Abusive Calls to 9-1-1
Service (Class B Misdemeanor) in violation of Texas State Penal Code 42.061. The case remains
pending in Collin County, Texas.; (2) On January 27, 2025, Defendant reported to the U.S.
Probation 	Office 	and 	submitted 	a 	urine 	specimen 	that 	was 	positive 	for 	the 	use 	of
methamphetamine. The specimen was confirmed positive for methamphetamine by Alere
Toxicology Services, Inc., on February 4, 2025; (3) On March 11, 2025, a home visit at
Defendant’s initially approved residence in Farmersville, Texas, was conducted and the owner of
Case 4:18-cr-00235-SDJ-BD Document 90 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
the residence advised that Defendant did not reside at this residence and was unaware of his
location or how to contact him; (4) Defendant failed to obtain employment for the months of
February and March 2025, and was not excused from seeking or maintaining employment by the
probation officer; (5) Defendant was instructed to report in person to the U.S. Probation Office on
February 25, March 5, and March 14, 2025, and he failed to report as instructed; and (6) On March
19, 2025, Defendant was instructed to report to Life Path Systems in McKinney, Texas, for mental
health treatment services and he failed to report as instructed. (Dkt. #58 at pp. 1–3, Sealed).
Because the Government and Defendant did not reach a plea agreement at the final
revocation hearing, the case proceeded to hearing. At the hearing, U.S. Probation Officer Rick
Ramos (“Officer Ramos”) testified. During his testimony, Officer Ramos explained the allegations
set forth above. Having considered all the evidence presented, the court finds that Defendant
violated allegations 2-6. In reaching this conclusion, the court considered that Defendant
absconded from March 23, 2025, to May 5, 2025. Additionally, Defendant previously violated
similar conditions of release, was given a reduced sentence, but has now returned to court having
violated his conditions. Given Defendant’s continued drug use, the court finds that Defendant
presents a danger to the community and himself.
Defendant suffers from serious mental health and addiction issues. At Defendant’s original
final revocation hearing on May 15, 2024, former Magistrate Judge Kimberly C. Priest Johnson
recommended that Defendant serve the first twelve (12) months of his twenty-four (24) months of
supervised release at an in-patient treatment facility (Dkt. #54). However, at the hearing on
February 5, 2026, it was made clear that the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services Department does
not have access to in-patient treatment facilities on an extended basis for indigent defendants, like
Defendant herein.
Case 4:18-cr-00235-SDJ-BD Document 90 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
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 evidence put
forth at the final revocation hearing, 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 twenty-one (21) months, with no term of supervised
release to follow.
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 4:18-cr-00235-SDJ-BD Document 90 Filed 02/09/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

Case 4:18-cr-00235-SDJ-BD Document90_ Filed 02/09/26 Page 6 of 6 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

SIGNED this 9th day of February, 2026.

AILEEN GOLDMAN DURRETT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE