USA v. Trejo-Mendoza

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ISAI TREJO MENDOZA
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NUMBER 4:24-CR-258 (ALM)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION FOR WARRANT
FOR OFFENDER UNDER SUPERVISION
Pending is a “Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision” filed July
30, 2025, alleging that the Defendant, Isai Trejo Mendoza, violated his conditions of supervised
release. This matter is referred to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, 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
Trejo Mendoza was sentenced on February 29, 2024, before The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle of
the Western District of Texas after pleading guilty to the offense of Illegal Re-Entry into the United States,
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 13 and a criminal history category of III, was 18 to
24 months. The court imposed a sentence above the guideline range pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 3553 (a)(1).
He was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised release,
subject to the standard conditions of release, plus special conditions to include a $100.00 special
assessment fee.
Case 4:24-cr-00258-ALM-AGD Document 14 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

II. The Period of Supervision
On August 2, 2024, Trejo Mendoza completed his period of imprisonment and began
service of the supervision term. On December 11, 2024, the conditions of supervision were
modified to include substance abuse treatment and testing. Jurisdiction of this case was transferred
on July 28, 2025, and this case was reassigned to The Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III, Chief U.S.
District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas.
III. The Petition
United States Probation filed the Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision
raising one allegation, which alleges that Trejo Mendoza failed to notify his probation officer of
changes in living arrangements as instructed.
IV. Proceedings
On January 14, 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.
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 first allegation that claimed he failed to notify the probation officer of changes
in his living arrangements. In return, the parties agreed that he should serve a term of 5 months’
imprisonment, with one year of 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
Case 4:24-cr-00258-ALM-AGD Document 14 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

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 notify his probation officer of
any change in living arrangements (as instructed), 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.
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 4:24-cr-00258-ALM-AGD Document 14 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

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 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), when a term of supervised release is revoked and the
defendant is required to serve a term of imprisonment, the court may include a requirement that
the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment. The length of such a
term of supervised release shall not exceed the term of supervised release authorized by statute for
the offense that resulted in the original term of supervised release, less any term of imprisonment
that was imposed upon revocation of supervised release. The authorized term of supervised release
for this offense is not more than 3 years.
U.S.S.G. § 7C1.4(c) indicates where supervised release is revoked and the term of
imprisonment imposed is less than the maximum term of imprisonment imposable upon
revocation, the court may include a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of
supervised release upon release from imprisonment. The length of such a term of supervised
release shall not exceed the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that
resulted in the original term of supervised release, less any term of imprisonment that was imposed
upon revocation of supervised release.
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
Case 4:24-cr-00258-ALM-AGD Document 14 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

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 allegation that he violated a standard condition
of release that he failed to notify his probation officer of a change in living arrangements, as
instructed. Based upon the Defendant’s plea of “true” to this allegation of the 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.
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, with one year of
supervised release to follow.
Case 4:24-cr-00258-ALM-AGD Document 14 Filed 01/22/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

VII. Recommendations
The court should find that the Defendant violated a standard condition of release by failing
to notify his probation officer of a change in living arrangements. 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, with one year of supervised
release to follow.
As stated at the final revocation hearing, without objection, the same mandatory, standard
and special conditions of supervised release previously imposed when the Defendant was
originally sentenced in this case shall be re-imposed. Such conditions are set forth in the Judgment,
and the rationale for these conditions is contained in the Defendant’s Presentence Investigation
Report.
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 (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.
_________________________
Zack Hawthorn
United States Magistrate Judge
SIGNED this 22nd day of January, 2026.
Case 4:24-cr-00258-ALM-AGD Document 14 Filed 01/22/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>