USA v. Crossley

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DASHMAN CROSSLEY
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NUMBER 1:20-CR-00048-MAC
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR
WARRANT FOR OFFENDER UNDER SUPERVISION
Pending is a “First Amended Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under
Supervision” filed December 16, 2025, alleging that the Defendant, Dashman Crossley, 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
Dashman Crossley was sentenced on September 30, 2021, before The Honorable Marcia
A. Crone, 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 21 and a criminal history category of III, was 46 to 57 months. Dashman Crossley was
subsequently sentenced to 57 months’ imprisonment followed by a 3 year term of supervised
release subject to the standard conditions of release, plus special conditions to include financial
Case 1:20-cr-00048-MAC-CLS Document 72 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

-2-
disclosure; testing and treatment for substance abuse; mental health treatment; and a $100 special
assessment.
II. The Period of Supervision
On August 20, 2024, Dashman Crossley completed his period of imprisonment and began
service of the supervision term. On November 17, 2025, the court modified the conditions of
supervision, with Crossley’s consent, to include home detention for a period of 90 days with
electronic monitoring.
III. The Petition
United States Probation filed the First Amended Petition for Warrant for Offender Under
Supervision raising three allegations. The petition alleges that Dashman Crossley violated the
following conditions of release:
Allegation 1. The Defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local
crime.
Allegation 2. The Defendant must refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled
substance.
Allegation 3. The Defendant is to be placed on home detention for a period of 90
days, to commence immediately. During this time, he must remain at his place of
residence except for employment and other activities approved in advance by the
United States Probation Officer. At the direction of the probation officer, he must
wear an electronic monitoring device and follow electronic monitoring procedures
specified by the probation officer. He is to pay the cost associated with the
electronic monitoring program.
IV. Proceedings
On February 11, 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 1:20-cr-00048-MAC-CLS Document 72 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 7 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 refrain from the unlawful use of a
controlled substance by testing positive for marijuana on November 7, 2024. In return, the
parties agreed that he should serve a term of 5 months’ imprisonment, which includes 86 days’
unserved home detention, 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 refrain from the unlawful use
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 1:20-cr-00048-MAC-CLS Document 72 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

-4-
of a controlled substance by testing positive for marijuana on November 7, 2024, 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 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 III, the policy statement imprisonment
range is 5 to 11 months.
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.
According to U.S.S.G. § 7C1.4(b), any term of imprisonment imposed upon the
revocation of supervised release generally should be ordered to be served consecutively to any
sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving, whether or not the sentence of
imprisonment being served resulted from the conduct that is the basis of the revocation of
supervised release. The Defendant’s agreed upon revocation sentence shall run consecutively to
any other term of imprisonment he is serving.
According to U.S.S.G. § 7C1.4, application note 4, any restitution, fine, community
confinement, home detention, or intermittent confinement previously imposed in connection with
a sentence for which revocation is ordered that remains unpaid or unserved at the time of
revocation should be ordered to be paid or served in addition to the sanction determined under
U.S.S.G. § 7C1.5 (Term of Imprisonment – Supervised Release), and any such unserved period
Case 1:20-cr-00048-MAC-CLS Document 72 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

-5-
of community confinement, home detention, or intermittent confinement may be converted to an
equivalent period of imprisonment. The Defendant has 86 days of unserved home detention.
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);
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 second allegation that he violated a
mandatory condition of release that he failed to refrain from the unlawful use of a controlled
substance by testing positive for marijuana on November 7, 2024. Based upon the Defendant’s
plea of “true” to this allegation of the First Amended 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.
Case 1:20-cr-00048-MAC-CLS Document 72 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

-6-
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 III. The policy statement range in the Guidelines
Manual is 5 to 11 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 5 months
(which includes 86 days of unserved home detention converted to an equivalent term of
imprisonment), with no supervised release to follow.
VII. Recommendations
The court should find that the Defendant violated the second allegation in the petition that
he violated a mandatory condition of release by failing to refrain from the unlawful use of a
controlled substance by testing positive for marijuana on November 7, 2024. 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 5 months’ imprisonment (which includes
86 days’ unserved home detention converted to an equivalent term of 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
Case 1:20-cr-00048-MAC-CLS Document 72 Filed 02/11/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

-7-
(involving all conditions of supervised release, if applicable). The Defendant also waived his
right to be present and speak and have his 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 11th day of February, 2026.
Case 1:20-cr-00048-MAC-CLS Document 72 Filed 02/11/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>