Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Sims — Magistrate judge recommended revocation and 24 months in prison

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Stacey Allen Sims
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Judge
Bill Davis
Date Decided
August 7, 2026
Docket No.
4:24-cr-00121-ALM-AGD-1
Topics
Supervised Release, Revocation, Sentencing

Background

Stacey Allen Sims was sentenced in 2013 to 138 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. His supervised-release term began on December 12, 2022.

In July 2026, a probation officer sought a warrant based on alleged violations of Sims’s supervised-release conditions, including conditions barring new crimes and unlawful controlled-substance possession and requiring him to refrain from excessive alcohol use. At the final revocation hearing, the government dismissed one allegation, and Sims pleaded true to the remaining allegations, consented to revocation, and waived his right to object to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. Both sides supported a 24-month prison sentence.

The Court’s Holding

U.S. Magistrate Judge Bill Davis recommended revoking Sims’s supervised release based on the allegations in the revocation petition.

The magistrate judge further recommended committing Sims to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for 24 months, with that sentence to run consecutively to any other term of imprisonment. Although the government requested—and Sims agreed—that no supervised-release term should follow, the report’s recommendation did not address whether additional supervised release should be imposed.

Key Takeaways

  • The magistrate judge recommended revocation after Sims pleaded true to the remaining allegations and consented to revocation.
  • The recommended sentence was 24 months in federal prison, consecutive to any other imprisonment.
  • The formal recommendation did not state whether another term of supervised release should follow imprisonment.

Why It Matters

The report distinguishes the parties’ sentencing request from the relief the magistrate judge formally recommended. Any later disposition should be evaluated by reference to the district court’s final order, including whether it adopts, modifies, or rejects the recommendation.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top