USA v. Ward et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
DEMARCUS DONELL ANDERSON (3)
§
§
§ 	CASE NO. 6:11-CR-00078-JCB-KNM
§
§
§
§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ON REVOCATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
On March 10, 2026, the Court held a final revocation hearing on a Petition for Warrant or
Summons for Offender under Supervision. The Government was represented by Assistant United
States Attorney Jim Noble. Defendant was represented by Assistant Federal Defender Ken
Hawk.
Background
After pleading guilty to the offense of Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute
at Least 112 Grams but Less Than 196 Grams of Cocaine Base, a Class B felony, Demarcus
Donell Anderson was sentenced on June 12, 2012, by United States District Judge Leonard
Davis. The offense carried a statutory maximum imprisonment term of 40 years. The guideline
imprisonment range, based on a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of VI,
was 188 to 235 months. The Court sentenced Defendant to imprisonment for a term of 188
months, followed by a 5-year term of supervised release, subject to the standard conditions of
supervised release and special conditions to include financial disclosure, drug testing, drug
treatment, and a $100 special assessment. Defendant completed his term of imprisonment and
started his term of supervised release on February 14, 2025.
Case 6:11-cr-00078-JCB-KNM Document 422 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Allegations
In the First Amended Petition seeking to revoke Defendant’s supervised release, filed on
February 25, 2026, United States Probation Officer Satori Barnes alleges that Defendant violated
the following condition of supervised release:
1. 	Allegation 1 (mandatory condition): The defendant must not commit another
federal, state, or local crime. It is alleged that Defendant committed the offense of
Unlawful Restraint, a Class A Misdemeanor, on May 25, 2025. On December 2, 2025,
Defendant appeared in Gregg County Court at Law #1 on Case No. 2025-1186 and
pled guilty, receiving a 45-day sentence of imprisonment in the Gregg County Jail. It
is also alleged that Defendant was arrested on February 23, 2026 by the Duncanville
Police Department for the offense of Assault Family Violence. According to the arrest
details, law enforcement was called to a disturbance by a female reporting that
Defendant prevented her from leaving the reported location and pushed her during an
argument.
2. 	Allegation 2 (standard condition 3): The defendant shall answer truthfully all
inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation
officer. It is alleged that Defendant failed to report for drug tests as directed by the
probation officer on January 8, 2026 and January 30, 2026
3. 	Allegation 3 (standard condition 7): The defendant shall refrain from excessive
use of alcohol and shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or administer any
controlled substance or any paraphernalia related to any controlled substances,
except as prescribed by a physician. 	It is alleged that Defendant submitted urine
specimens on August 26, 2025, September 26, 2025, and October 6, 2025 that tested
positive for marijuana and were confirmed positive by Abbot Labs. 	Additionally,
Abbot Labs confirmed that the September 26 and October 6 results show a reuse of
marijuana after the previous positive test. It is also alleged that Defendant admitted
on December 30, 2025 that he ingested a gummy containing THC during his
incarceration in the Gregg County Jail on or about November 18, 2025, and he signed
an admission form.
4. 	Allegation 4 (standard condition 1): The defendant shall not leave the judicial
district without the permission of the Court or probation officer. It is alleged that
Defendant’s arrest in Duncanville, Texas, on February 23, 2026 is evidence that he
violated this condition.
Applicable Law
According to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), the Court may revoke the term of supervised release
and require a Defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release without
Case 6:11-cr-00078-JCB-KNM Document 422 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
credit for the time previously served under supervision, if it finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that Defendant violated a term of supervised release. Supervised release shall be revoked
upon a finding of a Grade A or B supervised release violation. 	U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(1). In the
present case, Defendant’s original offense of conviction was a Class B felony. Accordingly, the
maximum imprisonment sentence that may be imposed is 3 years. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
Under the Sentencing Guidelines, which are non-binding,1 if the Court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that Defendant violated his conditions of supervised release as
alleged in the petition, he is guilty of a Grade C violation. 	U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a). 	Defendant’s
original criminal history category was VI. 	The guidelines provide that Defendant’s guideline
imprisonment range for a Grade C violation is 8 to 14 months.
Hearing
On March 10, 2026, Defendant appeared for a final revocation hearing. Assistant United
States Attorney Jim Noble announced that Defendant and the Government reached an agreement
for Defendant to enter a plea of true to Allegation 4 of the petition and to jointly request a sentence
of imprisonment for a term of 12 months and 1 day, with no further term of supervised release.
After the Court explained to Defendant his right to a revocation hearing, he waived his right to a
revocation hearing and entered a plea of “true” to Allegation 4 of the petition. Defendant requested
a recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons to designate him to FCI Seagoville.
1 The United States Sentencing Guidelines as applied to revocations of supervised release “have always been non-
binding, advisory guides to district courts in supervised release revocation proceedings.” United States v. Brown,
122 Fed.Appx. 648, 2005 WL 518704, slip op. p.1 (5 th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642
(5 th Cir. 1995)); see also United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87 (5 th Cir. 1994) (policy statements contained in
Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines applicable to sentencing a defendant upon revocation of supervised release
are advisory only.).
Case 6:11-cr-00078-JCB-KNM Document 422 Filed 03/11/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Findings and Conclusions
I find that Defendant is competent and that his plea and waiver of the revocation hearing
was knowingly and voluntarily made. I accept Defendant’s plea and find by a preponderance of
the evidence that Allegation 4 of the petition is true. Defendant is guilty of a Grade C supervised
release violation. I further find and conclude that Defendant’s term of supervised release should
be revoked and that he should be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 12 months and 1 day,
with no further term of supervised release. Through an individualized assessment, I determined
that no new term of supervised release is warranted. 	Any criminal history monetary penalties
previously ordered in the final judgment should be imposed in this revocation, with all payments
collected credited towards outstanding balances.
RECOMMENDATION
In light of the foregoing, it is recommended that Defendant’s plea of true to Allegation 4
of the petition be ACCEPTED and that Defendant’s term of supervised release be REVOKED.
It is further recommended that Defendant be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 12 months
and 1 day, with no further term of supervised release. Any criminal monetary penalties previously
ordered in the final judgment should be imposed in this revocation, with all payments collected
credited towards outstanding balances. It is finally recommended that the Court request the Bureau
of Prisons to designate Defendant to FCI Seagoville.
Before 	the 	conclusion 	of 	the 	hearing, 	the 	undersigned 	announced 	the 	foregoing
recommendation and notified Defendant of his right to object to this Report and Recommendation
and to be present and allocute before being sentenced by the Court. Defendant waived those rights
and executed a written waiver in open court. The Government also waived its right to object to
the Report and Recommendation. It is therefore recommended that the Court revoke Defendant’s
Case 6:11-cr-00078-JCB-KNM Document 422 Filed 03/11/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
supervised release and enter a Judgment and Commitment for him to be sentenced to imprisonment
for a term of 12 months and 1 day, with no further term of supervised release.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of March, 2026.
Case 6:11-cr-00078-JCB-KNM Document 422 Filed 03/11/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>