USA v. BOGGERTY et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CASE NO.: 7:21-CR-00048
:
DAMARIUS WILLIAMS, 	:
:
Defendant. 	:
:
ORDER
The Court held a hearing on the United States Probation Office’s Petition (Doc. 680)
to revoke Defendant Damarius Williams’s supervised release. This Order memorializes that
hearing. Previously, Williams pleaded guilty to 	possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine in violation of 21 USC §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) and 21 USC §
2 . The Petition alleges seven violations of his supervised release. (Doc. 680 at 1-2).
At the hearing, Defense Counsel acknowledged that Williams had been provided
with a copy of the Petition for revocation and that Counsel had reviewed it with him. The
Court advised Williams of his rights to a hearing on the allegations, in which the
Government would be required to prove the allegations by a preponderance of the
evidence; to present evidence in his defense; and to testify in his defense. Williams was
also advised that he was not required to testify or present a defense and whether he would
testify was his decision—all of which Williams acknowledged he understood. The Court
also confirmed from Williams that he had received the Petition and the Revocation Report
(Doc. 111) and reviewed them. Williams stated that he had spoken to Counsel and wished
to stipulate to Violations One, Two, Three, and Four. Because Williams stipulated to
Violations One, Two, Three, and Four, the Government withdrew the allegations of
Violation Five, Six, and Seven. The Court also found that Williams’s waiver of a hearing
on the Petition was freely, knowingly, and voluntarily done.
Because Williams stipulated and admitted to Violations One, Two, Three, and Four
as alleged, the Court found that the violations in the Petition had been established by a
Case 7:21-cr-00048-WLS-ALS Document 761 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 2

2
preponderance of the evidence.1 Once the violations had been established, the Court heard
from the Government, Defense Counsel, and Defendant Williams. Neither Williams nor
the Government objected to the Revocation Report. The Court then declared Williams’s
supervised release revoked.
The Court determined Williams’s U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range to be 5 to 11
months based on Grade C violations and a criminal history category of III. Considering the
totality of circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e) factors, the Court sentenced
Williams to time served. The Court found this sentence appropriate to reflect the seriousness
of Williams’s conduct and to protect the public. Williams’s imprisonment shall be followed by
no supervised release.
For these reasons, the Petition (Doc. 680) is GRANTED, and Williams’s supervised
release is REVOKED. Defendant is sentenced to time served. After his release, he will have
no term of supervised release.
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of December 2025.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1 “Due process requires that the court state ‘the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking
[supervised release.’” United States v. Dees, 452 F. App’x 929, 931 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States
v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 414 (11th Cir. 1994)). “This requirement is satisfied when the record is
‘sufficiently complete to advise the parties and the reviewing court of the reasons for the revocation
of supervised release and the evidence the decision maker relied upon.’” Id. (citations omitted).
Case 7:21-cr-00048-WLS-ALS Document 761 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 2