USA v. Bingham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 09-14022-CR-GRAHAM/MAYNARD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JASON DAVID BINGHAM,
Defendant.
______________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE PETITION
FOR WARRANT FOR OFFENDER UNDER SUPERVISION (DE 69)
THIS CAUSE came before me for an evidentiary hearing on October 27, 2025. At that
time, the Defendant indicated to me that he did not wish to contest the violations alleged in the
Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision (the “Petition”) (DE 69). The Government
proffered its evidence, and I questioned the Defendant under oath to make sure he understood the
violations, the possible penalties, and his right to an evidentiary hearing. Having done so, I
respectfully recommend as follows:
1. The Petition alleges 13 violations of supervised release. Violation Numbers 1, 2,
3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 essentially charge the Defendant with (a) failing to report an active
telephone number, an active email address, and active Internet identifiers to the Probation Officer
and on his sex offender registration forms and (b) possessing devices capable of accessing the
internet without Court permission and lying to the Probation Office about such possession.
Violation Numbers 3, 5, 6, and 7 charge the Defendant with failing to report a change in his address
Case 2:09-cr-14022-DLG Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2025 Page 1 of 3

2 of 3
when the Defendant, who typically resides in his car at a gas station, began staying at his mother’s
home.
2. The Government proceeded by proffer, relying on the Petition and the
Memorandum from U.S. Probation Officer Robert Tango dated May 12, 2025. The Government’s
witness—Officer Tango—was available for cross-examination.
3. The Defendant did not seek to cross-examine any witnesses and did not present any
witnesses or evidence. I advised the Defendant of his rights in this regard, and the Defendant
agreed that he did not wish to cross-examine witnesses or present any witnesses or evidence.
4. I have considered the Government’s proffer, which was admitted without objection
or cross-examination, and find that it establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the
Defendant committed Violation Numbers 1 through 13.
5. The possible maximum penalties faced by the Defendant were read into the record,
and the Defendant stated that he understood those penalties.
ACCORDINGLY, I recommend to the District Court that the Defendant be found to have
violated his supervised release with respect to Violation Numbers 1 through 13, and that a
sentencing hearing be set at the earliest convenience of the District Court for final disposition of
this matter. The parties shall have 14 days from the date of this Report and Recommendation
within which to file objections, if any, with the Honorable Donald L. Graham, the United States
District Judge assigned to this case. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule
59(b)(2), failure to file objections timely waives a party’s right to review and bars the parties from
attacking on appeal any legal rulings and factual findings contained herein.
Case 2:09-cr-14022-DLG Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2025 Page 2 of 3

3 of 3
DONE AND SUBMITTED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 5th day of
November, 2025.
____________________________________
SHANIEK MILLS MAYNARD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:09-cr-14022-DLG Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2025 Page 3 of 3