Reported / Citable
Background
Daniel Hurley Shumate received concurrent 60-month prison terms after pleading guilty in the District of New Mexico to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and to receiving or possessing an unregistered firearm. He began concurrent two-year terms of supervised release on December 31, 2024, and jurisdiction was later transferred to the Eastern District of Texas.
A probation petition alleged six violations, including committing a new drug offense, possessing and using controlled substances, consuming alcohol, failing to obtain full-time employment, and interacting with a person known to be engaged in criminal activity. Before the government presented its case at the final revocation hearing, it moved to dismiss allegations 1, 2, and 6. Shumate pleaded true to allegations 3, 4, and 5, which concerned unlawful drug use, prohibited alcohol use, and failure to obtain employment.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Aileen Goldman Durrett found, based on the petition and Shumate’s pleas of true, that he violated the conditions of his supervised release through the conduct alleged in allegations 3, 4, and 5.
The magistrate judge recommended that the district court revoke Shumate’s supervised release and impose eight months of imprisonment with no additional supervised-release term. She also recommended granting the government’s motion to dismiss allegations 1, 2, and 6 and, if appropriate, housing Shumate at a Bureau of Prisons facility in Seagoville, Texas.
Key Takeaways
- Shumate admitted the alleged drug-use, alcohol-use, and employment violations.
- The government sought dismissal of the new-crime, drug-possession, and prohibited-association allegations.
- The report recommends eight months in prison, no further supervised release, and possible placement in Seagoville.
Why It Matters
The report illustrates how admissions at a revocation hearing can establish supervised-release violations without litigation of every allegation in the probation petition. It also distinguishes the violations supporting the recommended revocation from the three allegations the government moved to dismiss.
Because this is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, it recommends a disposition rather than entering the district court’s final revocation judgment.