Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Walker — Magistrate judge recommends revoking supervised release

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Mika Jon Walker
Court
U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
Judge
Kimberly C. Priest Johnson
Date Decided
May 13, 2024
Docket No.
4:19-CR-99-ALM-AGD-3
Topics
Supervised release; Revocation; Controlled substances; Contraband

Background

Mika Jon Walker began a five-year term of supervised release on August 4, 2023, after completing a 60-month prison sentence imposed by U.S. District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III. The government later sought revocation based on three alleged violations.

The petition alleged that Walker used marijuana and methamphetamine, traveled to Louisiana without permission, and committed a Louisiana felony involving contraband intended for a federal prison. Officers allegedly found him near Pollock Federal Prison and recovered a duffel bag containing tobacco, lighters, tobacco papers, and alcohol; the petition stated that Walker admitted he expected to be paid $1,000 for the “drop.”

The Court’s Holding

At the final revocation hearing, Walker pleaded true to all three allegations, consented to revocation, and waived objections to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendation. Magistrate Judge Kimberly C. Priest Johnson found that Walker violated the terms of his supervised release.

The magistrate judge recommended revocation and a sentence of 12 months and one day in Bureau of Prisons custody, followed by four years of supervised release on the original conditions. The recommendation also stated that Walker should be placed at FMC Fort Worth if appropriate.

Key Takeaways

  • Walker admitted all three alleged supervised-release violations.
  • The magistrate judge recommended revocation rather than continued supervision.
  • The proposed disposition was 12 months and one day of imprisonment plus four years of supervised release.

Why It Matters

This is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final revocation judgment by the district judge. Walker’s admissions and waiver of objections provided the basis for the recommended revocation disposition.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top