Reported / Citable
Background
Norman Eugene Van Zee pleaded guilty in the District of South Dakota to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, a Class A felony. He was sentenced in 2003 to 292 months in prison followed by 10 years of supervised release. He began supervision in August 2018, and jurisdiction was later transferred to the Eastern District of Texas.
An amended petition alleged eight violations of Van Zee’s release conditions. The allegations included repeated marijuana use, a positive test for marijuana and methamphetamine, failure to report for drug testing, a theft citation, failure to report law-enforcement contact, and controlled-substance offenses arising from an April 2026 arrest. At the final revocation hearing, the government moved to dismiss allegations seven and eight, which concerned the April arrest and alleged illegal possession. Van Zee pleaded true to allegations one through six and waived allocution before the district judge and objections to the report and recommendation.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Aileen Goldman Durrett found, based on the amended petition and Van Zee’s pleas of true, that he violated the conditions of his supervised release as alleged in counts one through six.
The magistrate judge recommended that the district court revoke Van Zee’s supervised release and sentence him to 21 months in Bureau of Prisons custody, with no additional supervised release. The judge also recommended dismissing allegations seven and eight and housing Van Zee in a Bureau of Prisons medical facility in Fort Worth, Texas, if appropriate.
Key Takeaways
- Van Zee admitted six supervised-release violations involving drug use, missed testing, a theft citation, and failure to report law-enforcement contact.
- The government sought dismissal of the two allegations arising from Van Zee’s April 2026 drug-possession arrest.
- The magistrate judge recommended 21 months of imprisonment, no further supervised release, and medical-facility placement if appropriate.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates that admitted drug-use, testing, and reporting violations can support revocation even when separate criminal allegations are dismissed from the revocation proceeding. It also distinguishes the magistrate judge’s recommendation from a final revocation judgment, which remains for the district judge to enter.