Federal white-collar crime cases often do not end with a conviction and prison sentence. Many defendants are subject to supervised release following incarceration, and violations of these terms can result in significant consequences, including additional imprisonment. A recent opinion issued by a Florida court in a white-collar crime case demonstrates that federal courts retain jurisdiction over unresolved violations of supervised release, even after initially revoking supervision and imposing a sentence. If you are accused of violating the conditions of your release, it is critical to speak with a Sarasota white-collar crime defense attorney as soon as possible to protect your rights and freedom.
History of the Case
It is reported that the defendant was convicted in federal court of multiple white-collar crimes, including bank fraud and identity theft. He was sentenced to 24 months and one day of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. After completing his custodial sentence, the defendant was released under supervision. During the term of supervised release, the government filed a petition alleging seven violations. These included unauthorized travel, failure to provide truthful reports, lying to a probation officer, associating with individuals involved in criminal conduct, and new charges involving identity theft and unlawful possession of ammunition.
It is alleged that at a revocation hearing, the defendant admitted to three of the violations. The court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to five months in prison, followed by 54 months of renewed supervision. The remaining violations were not dismissed, however. Instead, the district court agreed to hold them in abeyance while the government conducted further investigation. On the date the defendant completed the five-month sentence, the district court reconvened to address the remaining allegations. The court found that the defendant had unlawfully possessed ammunition, imposed an additional four months in prison, and ordered a new term of 48 months of supervised release. The defendant appealed. Continue Reading ›