UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. No. 18-cr-54-ACR-MAU JEROME FULLER,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On July 10, 2024, the District Court referred this matter to this Court to conduct a hearing

and prepare a report and recommendation regarding Defendant Jerome Fuller’s (“Mr. Fuller”)

alleged supervised release violations. See Min. Order (July 10, 2024). 1 In petitions dated July 8,

2024 (“Original Petition”) and April 28, 2025 (“Updated Petition”), the United States Office of

Probation (“Probation”) alleged that Mr. Fuller violated five of his conditions of supervised

release. The Court held a substantive hearing on July 10, 2025. Min. Entry (July 10, 2025). Upon

consideration of the Parties’ positions and the relevant sentencing factors, this Court: 1) finds that

Mr. Fuller has violated one of the terms of his supervised release by using controlled substances on

May 3, 2023, July 15, 2023, March 12, 2024, and December 16, 2024; 2) recommends that the

District Court deny the requests of the Government and Probation to sentence Mr. Fuller to an

additional term of incarceration; and 3) further recommends that the District Court order that Mr.

Fuller continue his supervised release until his term expires on October 12, 2025.

1 Under Local Criminal Rule 32.1(e), a district judge may delegate a hearing on an alleged violation to a magistrate judge. See LCrR 32.1(e). The magistrate judge “shall file written findings and recommendations” and the district judge shall make a “de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report to which objections are made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. The district judge may rule based on the record developed before the magistrate judge or consider additional evidence. See id.

1 BACKGROUND

I. Initial Sentencing and Alleged Supervised Release Violations

On May 22, 2018, Mr. Fuller pleaded guilty to distribution of phencyclidine in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). ECF No. 12. On August 16, 2018, the District Court sentenced

him to sixty-three months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. ECF No. 20.

His term of supervised release began on October 13, 2022 and is set to expire on October 12, 2025.

ECF No. 38 at 1. 2

On July 8, 2024, Probation filed the Original Petition, in which it alleged five violations.

ECF No. 38. According to Probation, Mr. Fuller had:

• Failed to report to his supervising officer as instructed;

• Used controlled substances (Fentanyl, Norfentanyl, and Cannaboids);

• Failed to submit to substance abuse testing;

• Possessed controlled substances (Fentanyl, Norfentanyl, and Cannaboids); and

• Failed to comply with mandated substance abuse treatment.

On September 5, 2024, Mr. Fuller appeared for an initial hearing on the Original Petition.

Min. Entry (Sep. 5, 2024); see also ECF No. 40. At that hearing, the Parties agreed that Mr. Fuller

should be evaluated for potential inpatient substance abuse treatment. ECF No. 40. The next day,

Mr. Fuller completed an intake interview with the treatment facility Samaritan Inns.

The

facility agreed to accept Mr. Fuller for a twenty-eight-day inpatient program.

The Court

ordered Mr. Fuller released to Samaritan Inns for purposes of attending the program. Min. Entry

(Sep. 9, 2024); ECF No. 40.

2 Citations are to the page numbers in the ECF headers.

2 II. Mr. Fuller’s Progress on Release

Most of Probation’s allegations stemmed from Mr. Fuller’s substance use disorder. Before

scheduling a substantive revocation hearing and in light of the fact that there were no allegations

that Mr. Fuller committed any new crimes on release, the Court found it appropriate to give Mr.

Fuller the opportunity to seek treatment. Thus, with the Parties largely in agreement, the Court

deferred the substantive hearing and monitored Mr. Fuller’s progress through a series of status

conferences.

On September 30, 2024, the Parties reported that Mr. Fuller left Samarian Inns early. ECF

No. 43 ¶ 2. After leaving the program, Mr. Fuller enrolled in a detox program at the Psychiatric

Institute of Washington.

He then transferred to Federal City Recovery Services (“Federal

City”) to begin another twenty-eight-day treatment program.

At a status conference on October 28, 2024, the Parties reported that Mr. Fuller had

completed the Federal City program. See Min. Entry (Oct. 28, 2024). Further, Mr. Fuller intended

to enroll in an outpatient program, which would also help him find employment. Defense counsel

and Probation disagreed on where Mr. Fuller was living. Defense counsel stated that Mr. Fuller

was living with his aunt, whereas Probation stated that its records reflected a different address.

The Court ordered the Parties to attempt to resolve the residence issue together and to return for a

status conference in December.

At the December 2024 status conference, Probation reported three issues with Mr. Fuller’s

compliance. See Min. Entry (Dec. 17, 2024). First, Mr. Fuller tested positive for fentanyl on one

occasion. Second, Mr. Fuller failed to enroll in an outpatient treatment program. Third, Probation

still could not verify Mr. Fuller’s residence. Upon hearing from all Parties, the Court concluded

that some of these problems arose because defense counsel, Probation, and Mr. Fuller had failed

to communicate with each other. The Court ordered the Parties to file a status report in two weeks

3 with an update on Mr. Fuller’s residence and enrollment in an outpatient program. See Min. Order

(Dec. 17, 2024). The Court also ordered the Parties to appear for another status conference in early

February. See

On December 30, 2024, the Parties jointly reported that they had resolved the issues with

Mr. Fuller’s residence. ECF No. 47 ¶ 2. The Parties further reported that Probation directed Mr.

Fuller to appear at a later date for assessment for potential outpatient treatment.

.

At the status conference on February 3, 2025, the Parties advised that some but not all

issues had been resolved. See Min. Entry (Feb. 3, 2025). On the one hand, Mr. Fuller had enrolled

in an outpatient treatment program and was in stable housing. On the other hand, Probation had

been unable to obtain another drug test since December 2024. Defense counsel represented that

Mr. Fuller had provided drug tests to his work training program. The Court reminded Mr. Fuller

that, even if true, he was required to report specifically to Probation for drug testing.

On February 7, the Parties jointly reported that Mr. Fuller provided Probation with a

negative drug test. ECF No. 48 ¶ 2. On February 24, however, the Parties reported that Mr. Fuller

missed a drug test on February 18. ECF No. 49 ¶ 3. Mr. Fuller claimed that his phone had been

stolen and that he did not receive Probation’s text message.

In a subsequent report, Probation

explained that it visited Mr. Fuller at his job site on March 4, but Mr. Fuller could not provide a

sample. ECF No. 50 at 1. Although Probation then directed Mr. Fuller to be tested at the Probation

office on both March 4 and March 6, Mr. Fuller failed to appear on either date.

at 1–2.

At a status conference on March 17, 2025, the Court explained that, although it had given

Mr. Fuller multiple opportunities and warnings, Mr. Fuller’s failure to comply with drug testing

compelled the Court to set a revocation hearing. See Min. Entry (Mar. 17, 2025).

4 III. Updated Petition

At the Court’s direction, Probation filed an Updated Petition to include the complete set of

alleged violations against Mr. Fuller. ECF No. 53. Those allegations include:

Violation Condition Allegation No. 1. After initially reporting to the probation Failing to report to his supervising office, you will receive instructions officer as instructed on December 12, from the court or the probation officer 2023, March 6, 2024, March 29, 2024, about how and when you must report to May 10, 2024, May 31, 2024, June 7, the probation officer, and you must 2024, June 14, 2024, June 20, 2024, report to the probation officer as June 21, 2024, June 28, 2024 and July instructed. (Standard Condition #2) 5, 2024. 2. You must refrain from any unlawful use Using controlled substances (Fentanyl, of a controlled substance. You must Norfentanyl, and Cannaboids) on May submit to one drug test within 15 days 3, 2023, July 15, 2023, March 12, 2024, of release from imprisonment and at and December 16, 2024. least two periodic drug tests thereafter, as determined by the court. (Mandatory Condition) 3. If directed by the probation office, you Failing to submit to substance abuse must submit to substance abuse testing testing as instructed on February 20, to determine if you have used a 2024, March 28, 2024, April 10, 2024, prohibited substance. You must not April 30, 2024, May 8, 2024, May 21, attempt to obstruct or tamper with the 2024, May 24, 2024, June 11, 2024, testing methods. (Special Condition) June 27, 2024, January 14, 2025, February 18, 2025, March 4, 2025, March 5, 2025, and April 9, 2025. 4. You must not unlawfully possess a Possessing controlled substances controlled substance. (Mandatory (Fentanyl, Norfentanyl, and Condition) Cannaboids) on May 3, 2023, July 15, 2023, and March 12, 2024. 5. You must participate in an inpatient Failing to comply with his mandated and/or outpatient substance abuse substance abuse treatment on December treatment program and follow the rules 29, 2023 and September 27, 2024. and regulations of that program. (Special Condition)

See ECF Nos. 38 at 2–3; 53 at 2.

5 IV. Resolution on Supervised Release Violations

At a status conference on May 21, 2025, the Parties advised the Court that they had reached

a partial resolution of the Updated Petition. Mr. Fuller would concede to Violation No. 2, and the

Government would dismiss the remaining allegations. See Min. Entry (May 21, 2025). The

Government represented that it would not argue that Mr. Fuller’s violations required mandatory

revocation. Given the Parties’ agreement, the only remaining issue is the appropriate sentence for

Violation No. 2. The Court heard argument on July 10, 2025. Min. Entry (July 10, 2025).

ANALYSIS

I. Legal Standard

District courts have broad discretion to oversee a defendant’s supervised release. See

United States v. Russell, No. 05-cr-272,

, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2022), R. & R.

adopted,

(D.D.C. May 10, 2022). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

32.1, the Court must hold a hearing on a defendant’s alleged violations before revoking or

modifying his supervised release. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1. Under

(e), several

options are available to address violations. The Court may revoke supervised release if the Court

finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition.

(e)(3). The Court can only require a defendant to serve a term of incarceration that is all or

part of the term of supervised release, without credit for time previously served.

The Court

may extend the term of supervised release if the Court previously imposed supervised release for

less than the maximum authorized term.

§ 3583(e)(2). Finally, the Court may terminate

supervised release (after the defendant serves one year of supervised release) if the Court “is

satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of

justice.” Id. § 3583(e)(1).

6 Additionally, the Court must consider certain factors before revoking or terminating

supervised release. Id. § 3583(e). The following factors set forth in

(a) apply:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed . . . (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; . . . (4) the kinds of sentence and sentencing range established for . . . (B) in the case of a violation of probation or supervised release, the applicable guidelines or policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission . . . (5) any pertinent policy statement (A) issued by the Sentencing Commission . . . (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

§ 3553(a).

II. Discussion

Mr. Fuller has confirmed that he concedes Violation No. 2. ECF No. 63 at 6. Accordingly,

this Court finds that Mr. Fuller did, in fact, use controlled substances on four dates: May 3, 2023;

July 15, 2023; March 12, 2024; and December 16, 2024. See ECF Nos. 38 at 2; 53 at 2. It is

important to note that, as of the date of this Report and Recommendation, there are no allegations

that Mr. Fuller has engaged in any violent or alleged new criminal conduct, including conduct

similar to that underlying his conviction.

The Government seeks revocation and an eight-month sentence of reincarceration. ECF

No. 61 at 4. The Government has conceded that Mr. Fuller’s violations do not trigger mandatory

revocation under

(g). 3 Nonetheless, the Government argues that an eight-month

3 Revocation is mandatory if a defendant “as a part of drug testing, tests positive for illegal controlled substances more than 3 times over the course of 1 year.”

(g)(4). Mr. Fuller’s four positive test results occurred between May 2023 and December 2024, which is a period greater than one year.

7 sentence would serve two purposes: 1) to punish Mr. Fuller for his material noncompliance with

his conditions; and 2) to deter Mr. Fuller and others from similar repeated noncompliance in the

future. See

Probation recommends a four-month sentence of reincarceration. ECF No. 62 at

1. Mr. Fuller argues that the Court should terminate his supervised release based on his progress

since completing his term of incarceration. See ECF No. 63 at 1, 9. In the alternative, Mr. Fuller

argues that the Court should continue him on supervised release until his term expires in October

2025.

.

Mr. Fuller committed Grade C violations. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(3); ECF Nos. 61 at 3;

63 at 2. Based on these violations and his Criminal History Category of VI, the Sentencing

Guidelines provide a range of eight to fourteen months of imprisonment. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); see

ECF Nos. 38 at 3; 61 at 2. The Sentencing Guidelines are, of course, advisory. See United States

v. Turner,

(D.C. Cir. 2022) (citing United States v. Booker,

(2005)). Upon close consideration of the Section 3553(a) factors, this Court recommends that the

District Court deny the request of the Government and Probation to sentence Mr. Fuller to an

additional term of incarceration. The Court also recommends that the District Court deny Mr.

Fuller’s request for an early termination of his sentence. Instead, Mr. Fuller should remain on

supervised release with the conditions that the Court ordered in his original sentence.

A. Applicable Section 3553(a) Factors Weigh Against Reincarceration

First, the Government’s principal argument is that deterrence weighs in favor of

reincarceration. See

(a)(2)(B). Under this theory, reincarceration may deter Mr.

Fuller from violating his conditions of supervised release. In this case, however, it is undisputed

that Mr. Fuller’s violations resulted from his chronic struggles with substance use disorder.

Although Mr. Fuller has had relapses, the record reflects that he has also made significant strides

8 in voluntarily seeking addiction and mental health treatment, attempting to battle the disorder, and

otherwise abstaining from further criminal conduct. Because he has made progress in obtaining

treatment and achieving stability in his life, the deterrent effect of any period of reincarceration

would be minimal. If anything, in this case, a period of reincarceration would likely wipe away

the hard-earned progress he has achieved.

Second, a sentence of reincarceration will not “provide the defendant with needed

educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most

effective manner.”

(a)(2)(D). To the contrary, as stated above, reincarceration

will negatively impact the significant progress Mr. Fuller has made to date. Based on the

undisputed facts, Mr. Fuller has successfully transitioned into community life in many ways. See

United States v. Johnson,

(2000) (“Congress intended supervised release to assist

individuals in their transition to community life.”). Mr. Fuller has completed the Federal City

inpatient treatment program. See ECF Nos. 63 at 3, 10; 43 ¶ 2; Min. Entry (Oct. 28, 2024). He

continues to receive weekly outpatient drug treatment at MBI Health Services and weekly mental

health treatment at New Hope Health Services. ECF Nos. 63 at 3–4, 10; 46 at 2; Min. Entry (July

10, 2025). He graduated from the Project Empowerment job readiness program and is currently

employed in a full-time position with the D.C. Department of General Services. ECF No. 63 at 5;

46 at 2. Finally, he has stable housing. Id. at 4; Min. Entry (Feb. 3, 2025). If the Court sentenced

Mr. Fuller to a period of reincarceration, Mr. Fuller would lose his job and access to his current

medical care. Further, the period of reincarceration would surely introduce significant instability

into Mr. Fuller’s life.

Third, the history and characteristics of Mr. Fuller weigh against reincarceration. See

(a)(1). The Supreme Court has recognized that evidence of a defendant’s

9 conduct “since his initial sentencing constitutes a critical part of the ‘history and characteristics’

of a defendant that Congress intended sentencing courts to consider.” Pepper v. United States,

(2011) (citing

(a)). The evidence of Mr. Fuller’s progress

since his release from prison is relevant to this factor. Moreover, it is undisputed that Mr. Fuller

has not committed any crimes (besides unlawful use of controlled substances) while on supervised

release. ECF No. 63 at 5. Accordingly, on balance, the factors do not weigh in favor of an

additional period of incarceration.

B. Early Termination is Inappropriate

Neither Mr. Fuller’s conduct nor the interests of justice warrant terminating his supervised

release at this time. See

(e)(1). Although Mr. Fuller has made strides since he

completed his term of incarceration, he has also faced setbacks. His supervised release is set to

expire on October 12, 2025, which is in less than three months. ECF No. 38 at 1. This additional

period will continue to provide the supervision and additional structure and assistance Mr. Fuller

needs to transition into community life. See Johnson,

. Accordingly, Mr. Fuller

should serve the remaining three months and abide by the original conditions that the Court

previously imposed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court recommends that the District Court deny the requests

of the Government and Probation to sentence Mr. Fuller to a period of reincarceration; and that

the District Court order that Mr. Fuller continue his supervised release until his term expires.

SO ORDERED.

Date: August 1, 2025 ___________________________________ MOXILA A. UPADHYAYA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 Local Criminal Rule 59.2(b) Notice

The Parties are hereby advised that under Local Criminal Rule 59.2(b), any party who

objects to the proposed findings or recommendations herein must file written objections within

fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. Objections must

specifically identify the portion of the recommendation to which the objection pertains and the

basis for the objection. The Parties are further advised that they may waive their right of appeal

from an order of the District Court adopting such findings and recommendations if the Parties fail

to file timely objections to the findings and recommendation set forth in this Report. See Thomas

v. Arn,

(1985).

***

11