Reported / Citable
Background
Kelvin Lamont Simmons pleaded guilty in June 2022 to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright sentenced him to 41 months of imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised release, along with a $200 fine and a $100 special assessment. Simmons began serving his supervised release term on November 7, 2024.
On March 20, 2026, the U.S. Probation Office filed an Amended Petition for Warrant or Summons alleging five violations of Simmons’s supervision conditions. The alleged violations included committing new federal, state, or local crimes (Violations 1 and 5); failing to notify his probation officer within 72 hours of being arrested or questioned by law enforcement (Violation 2); communicating or interacting with persons he knew to be engaged in criminal activity or to be convicted felons without prior probation officer approval (Violation 3); and unlawful use of a controlled substance (Violation 4).
The matter was referred by U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Wolfe to U.S. Magistrate Judge Dan N. MacLemore for preparation of a Report and Recommendation. A revocation hearing was held on June 9, 2026, at which Simmons entered pleas of no contest to all five alleged violations.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge MacLemore found that Simmons’s no contest pleas were entered freely, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that a sufficient factual basis existed to support each plea. The court further found Simmons competent throughout the proceedings, with a factual and rational understanding of the charges and their consequences, and satisfied with his legal representation.
Based on those findings, the magistrate recommends that the district judge revoke Simmons’s supervised release and impose a sentence of 12 months and one day of imprisonment — with credit for any time already served since his arrest — followed by no additional period of supervised release. The Report and Recommendation is subject to objection within 14 days; failure to object bars de novo district court review and, except for plain error, forecloses appellate review of the unobjected-to findings.
Key Takeaways
- A no contest plea at a supervised release revocation hearing is treated as an admission sufficient to support revocation, provided it is knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.
- The recommended sentence of 12 months and one day — rather than exactly 12 months — carries practical significance: sentences exceeding one year qualify as felonies under federal classification and may affect good-conduct-time eligibility calculations.
- The magistrate recommended no further supervised release, effectively concluding the court’s supervision of Simmons upon completion of the prison term.
- Parties have 14 days to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation or risk waiving de novo review and appellate rights under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the broad exposure defendants face when they accumulate multiple supervision violations — including new criminal conduct, association with felons, drug use, and failure to report law enforcement contact — particularly where the underlying conviction already reflects a history of prior felony status. A no contest posture, while avoiding an outright admission of guilt, carries the same practical consequence as a true finding at the revocation stage.
The recommendation of no subsequent supervised release is also notable: courts sometimes impose follow-on supervision to provide reintegration structure, but where a defendant has demonstrated an inability to comply with conditions, terminating supervision upon release may reflect a judgment that further oversight would be unproductive. Defense counsel and probation practitioners should monitor whether the district judge adopts this recommendation in full.