USA v. Colbert et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
BERNARD COLBERT
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NUMBER 1:22-CR-00112-MAC
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON SECOND AMENDED
PETITION FOR WARRANT FOR OFFENDER UNDER SUPERVISION
Pending is a “Second Amended Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under
Supervision” filed February 6, 2026, alleging that Defendant, Bernard Colbert, 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
Bernard Colbert was sentenced on January 29, 2024, 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 12 and a criminal history category of V, was 27 to 33 months. Bernard Colbert was subsequently
sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment followed by a 2-year term of supervised release subject to
the standard conditions of release, plus special conditions to include financial disclosure, substance
Case 1:22-cr-00112-MAC-CLS Document 88 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
abuse treatment and testing, mental health treatment, to obtain a high school equivalency
certificate, and a $100 special assessment.
II. The Period of Supervision
On September 16, 2025, Colbert completed his period of imprisonment and began service
of the supervision term.
On October 16, 2025, the conditions of supervision were modified by the court, with
Colbert’s consent, to include an alcohol restriction.
On January 30, 2026, a First Amended Petition for Warrant for Person Under Supervision
was filed in this case alleging new violation conduct, which was granted by the court.
On February 6, 2026, a Second Amended Petition Warrant for Person Under Supervision
was filed in this case alleging new law violations.
III. The Petition
United States Probation filed the Second Amended Petition for Warrant for Offender Under
Supervision raising seven allegations. The petition alleges that Colbert violated the following
conditions of release:
Allegation 1. You must not commit another federal, state or local crime.
Allegation 2. You must not commit another federal, state or local crime.
Allegation 3. You shall abstain from the use of alcohol and any and all intoxicants.
Allegation 4. If you are arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer, you
must notify the probation officer within 72 hours.
Allegation 5. You must participate in a program of testing and treatment for
substance abuse and follow the rules and regulations of that program until
discharged. The probation officer, in consultation with the treatment provider, will
supervise your participation in the program.
Allegation 6. You must not commit another federal, state or local crime.
Case 1:22-cr-00112-MAC-CLS Document 88 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Allegation 7. You must not commit another federal, state or local crime
IV. Proceedings
On March 9, 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 Defendant violated
conditions of supervised release, and the appropriate course of action for any such violations.
At the revocation hearing, counsel for the Government and Defendant announced an
agreement as to a recommended disposition regarding the revocation. Defendant agreed to plead
“true” to the fourth allegation that claimed he failed to notify his probation officer of his arrest on
November 16, 2025, within 72 hours. In return, the parties agreed that he should serve a term of
15 months’ imprisonment 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 a 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.
Case 1:22-cr-00112-MAC-CLS Document 88 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
According to U.S.S.G. § 7C1.1(a)1, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence
that Defendant violated conditions of supervision by failing to notify his probation officer of his
arrest on November 16, 2025, within 72 hours, 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 V, the policy statement imprisonment range
is 7 to 13 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.
Defendant’s agreed upon revocation sentence shall run consecutively to any other term of
imprisonment he is serving.
In determining 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);
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 1:22-cr-00112-MAC-CLS Document 88 Filed 03/09/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
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
Defendant pled “true” to the petition’s allegation that he violated a standard condition of
release that he failed to notify his probation officer of his arrest on November 16, 2025, within 72
hours. Based upon Defendant’s plea of “true” to this allegation of the Second Amended Petition
for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision and U.S.S.G. § 7C1.3, the undersigned
finds that Defendant violated a condition of supervised release.
The undersigned has carefully conducted an individualized assessment and considered
each of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Defendant’s violation is a Grade C violation, and
the criminal history category is V. The policy statement range in the Guidelines Manual is 7 to 13
months. Defendant did not comply with the conditions of supervision and has demonstrated an
unwillingness to adhere to conditions of supervision.
Consequently, incarceration appropriately addresses Defendant’s violation. The sentencing
objectives of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation along with the aforementioned statutory
Case 1:22-cr-00112-MAC-CLS Document 88 Filed 03/09/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
sentencing factors will best be served by a prison sentence of 15 months with no supervised release
to follow. An upward variance of two months above the sentencing guidelines is warranted given
the nature of his violations and brief period of supervision with numerous violations.
VII. Recommendations
The court should find that Defendant violated the allegation in the petition that he violated
a standard condition of release by failing to notify his probation officer of his arrest on November
16, 2025, within 72 hours. The petition should be granted, and Defendant’s supervised release
should be revoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583. Defendant should be sentenced to a term of 15
months’ imprisonment with no supervised release to follow.
VIII. Objections
At the close of the revocation hearing, 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 (involving all
conditions of supervised release, if applicable). 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 9th day of March, 2026.
Case 1:22-cr-00112-MAC-CLS Document 88 Filed 03/09/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>