USA v. SPELLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Cause No. 1:20-cr-00299-JPH-TAB
)
ROYEON SPELLS, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 21, 2026, the Court held a hearing on the Petition for Warrant or Summons for
Offender Under Supervision filed on November 7, 2024. 	Defendant Spells appeared in person
with his appointed counsel from the Federal Community Defender Joe Cleary. The Government
appeared by Assistant United States Attorney Michelle Brady. U.S. Probation appeared by Officer
Brent Witter.
The Court conducted the following procedures in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P.
32.1(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583:
1. 	The Court advised Defendant Spells of his rights and ensured he had a copy of the
Petition. Defendant Spells waived his right to a preliminary hearing.
2. 	After being placed under oath, Defendant Spells admitted to violation 3 in the
Petition. 	Government orally moved to withdraw violation numbers 1 and 2, which motion was
granted by the Court such that alleged violations 1 and 2 in the Petition were dismissed.
3. 	The allegations to which Defendant admitted, as fully set forth in the Petition, are:
Case 1:20-cr-00299-JPH-TAB Document 72 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Violation
Number 	Nature of Noncompliance
3 	“"You shall not use or possess any controlled substances prohibited by
applicable state or federal law, unless authorized to do so by a valid
prescription from a licensed medical practitioner. You shall follow the
prescription instructions regarding frequency and dosage."
On September 27, 2024, Mr. Spells submitted a urine sample that was later
confirmed positive for Oxycodone on October 28, 2024. The Court was
previously advised Mr. Spells tested positive for marijuana on May 1, 2024,
July 24, 2024, and August 30, 2024.
4. 	The parties stipulated that:
(a) 	The highest grade of violation is a Grade B violation.
(b) 	Defendant’s criminal history category is III.
(c) 	The range of imprisonment applicable upon revocation of supervised
release, therefore, is 8 to 14 months of imprisonment.
5. 	The parties jointly recommended a sentence of 12 months of incarceration with no
supervised release to follow.
6. 	The Magistrate Judge, having considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to the
extent deemed appropriate by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), and as more fully set forth on the record, finds
that the Defendant violated the conditions as admitted in the petition, that his supervised release
should be revoked, and that he should be sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General or her
designee for a period of 12 months with no supervised release to follow.
7. 	The Government agreed that Defendant has already served fourteen months in
custody for a state charge of which he was ultimately acquitted. The Government also agreed that
the time Defendant spent in state custody would apply here. That said, the Government argued
that the BOP, not the sentencing court, should make that official calculation. 	Counsel for
Case 1:20-cr-00299-JPH-TAB Document 72 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Defendant disagreed and requested Defendant's immediate release, pending potential objection by
the Government to the District Judge should it reserve its right to do so.
8. 	Since the Government agrees that Defendant has already served fourteen months in
custody for a state charge of which he was ultimately acquitted and the Government also agrees
that the time Defendant spent in state custody applies to the twelve month sentence here, the Court
agrees with counsel for the Defendant that the Defendant shall be immediately released pending
potential objection by the Government to the District Judge.
9. 	Both the Government and the Defendant ultimately waived the fourteen-day period
to object to the District Judge. 	The Parties are hereby notified that the District Judge may
reconsider any matter referred to a Magistrate Judge.
10. 	Defendant is released pending the District Judge’s action on this Report and
Recommendation. The Court confirmed with Defendant that he understands that if he is ordered
to report to the BOP or to this Court for any reason, he shall promptly do so.
Distribution:
All ECF-registered counsel of record via email generated by the court’s ECF system
Date: 1/21/2026
Case 1:20-cr-00299-JPH-TAB Document 72 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>