Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Johnny Madison, Petitioner v. United States

APPENDIX

A: Judgment of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

B: Decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

C: Eighth Circuit Cotu·t of Appeals Order Denying

Petition for Rehearing

D: Judgment of the District Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No: 16-3391

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Johnny Madison

Defend@! - Appellant

·Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sio-ux City

(5: 15-cr-04072-LTS-l)

JUDGMENT

Before RILEY, BEAM and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

This appeal from the United States District Court was submitted on the rec.ord of the

district court and briefs ol'lhe parties,

After considernlion, il is hereby ordered and adjudged lhal lhe judgment of the district

court in this cause is affirmed in accordance with the opinion of Lhis Court.

July 20, 2017

Order Entered in Accordance wilh Opinion:

Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Isl Michael E. Gans

1\p1H:llale c,1::(-:: w-:,:im

Appendix A, page 1 (of 1)

F'aw:: :J

Dale l"ilml: 07/20/2017 E11lry ID: tl5590ll!i

1 of 2

fflntteb $)tate.s Qtourt of ~ppeal.s

jfot' t(Je ili1J(Jt(J 11Ciw1it

No. 16-3391

United States of America

Plaintiff- Appellee

v.

Johnny Madison

Defendant -Appellant

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City

Submitted: May 8, 2017

Filed: July 20, 2017

Before RILEY, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

The district court' sentenced Johnny Madison to 140 months in prison after

Madison pied guilty to two counts related to methamphetamine distribution. See

21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)( I), (b )(! )(B)(vii i), 846. Madison appeals his sentence and

'The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northem District oflowa.

Appendix B, page 1 of 9

/\!)l!Ullal<! Cw,n: Hi-33\ll

l",1(1c: l

Dale icilecl: 07/?.0/;!(JH l:.11t1y ID: tl5ci90fJ/I

3 of 11

contends the district court erred in three ways by: ( 1) overstating the amotint and

purity level of rnethamphetamine attributed to him; (2) crediting testimony suggesting

he possessed a, firearm; and (3) imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. We

affirm. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (appellate jurisdiction).

I.

BACKGROUND

Madison entered into a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine at some

point in 2014 or early 2015. Law enforcement became aware of this fact in March

2015, when a confidential source reported Madison was dealing methamphetamine

out of his house in Sioux City, Iowa. Officers then executed a controlled buy from

Madison on July 1, when the confidential source paid $1,200 for 24.5 grams of

methamphetamine that was later tested and shown to be 99 .1 % pure. The confidential

source contacted Madison again about two weeks later, this time looking to buy two

ounces (about 56. 7 grams) of rnethamphetamine. Madison agreed to the sale, but said

he needed another day to acquire the full amount. The deal never took place,

however, and the investigation continued.

Officers arrested Madison on state drug charges in late July. Madison's wife

(now ex-wife), Kelli, spoke with officers on July 29, and named Josh Navrkal and

Daniel Si1h1· as two of Madison's suppliers. Madison agreed to a proffer interview

in early September. The interview was not recorded and the parties disagree about

what Madison said.2 There is no question Madison admitted to purchasing a total of

14 l .75 grams of metharnphetamine from Navrkal, and 56.7 grams from another

supplier, Seid Tilahun. According to the police, Madison also admitted to purchasing

a quarter pound ofmethamphetamine from Suhr on three separate occasions-340.2

grams in all. Madison denies saying any such thing. Suhr, who was also questioned

2

According to Sergeant Troy Hansen, the Sioux City Police Department often

did not record proffer interviews. No doubt there are good reasons for this practice,·

though we note a video certainly would be helpful in cases like this.

-24 of 11

Appendix B, page 2 of D

/\p1.iellnu, Cnsr, I li,l:l!ll

l',iq,-,:;,

ll,1l0 l"ilc:LI: 07/?0/W:17 Lntry ID: 4!i!i,JOl14

by the police at one point, said he only sold Madison about 42.5 grams of

methamphetamine, an estimate Madison "agrees with." There is no indication

Madison said in the interview how pure any of this methamphetamine was, and these

specific quantities were never seized or tested for purity.

Madison was indicted in federal court in November 2015 for distributing and

conspiring to distribute five or more grams of pure methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(l), (b)(l)(B)(viii), 846. He pled guilty to both counts. The United States

Probation Office prepared a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), which attributed

519. I grams of actual methamphetamine to Madison based upon his reported

admissions from the proffer interview and the lab tests of methamphetamine seized

from Madison's suppliers. This put Madison slightly over the 500-gram threshold

and raised his base offense level to 34. See United States Sentencing Guidelines

(Guidelines or U.S.S.G.) § 2Dl.l(c)(3).

The PSR recommended a three-level

reduction for acceptance of responsibility, which resulted in a total offense level of

31 and an advisory Guidelines range of 168 to 210 rnonths. Madison objected to the

PSR, arguing the gross quantity of methamphetamine was too much and .the purity

rate too high. Madison also moved for a downward variance.

The government presented evidence to support the PSR's calculations at the

sentencing hearing. Sergeant Troy Hansen testified about the procedure for proffer

inte1views, generally-officers present for the interview take notes, and then one

officer is responsible for converting those notes into a report that must be drafted

within five days of the interview.

Here, the post-proffer report supported the

challenged paragraphs in the PSR regarding gross quantity. Although Sergeant

Hansen did not write this particular report, he was present for the interview and

confirmed the summary was consistent with the notes he and his two fellow officers

had taken. Sergeant Hansen also stated law enforcement seized and tested various

methamphetarnine samples from Tilahun, Navrkal, and Suhr, which se1ved as the

basis for the high average purity tales used in the PSR.

-3-

A11pdlc1le Cit,e: Hi :l:391

Appendix B, page 3 of 9

1

r ,-1(Je: 3 Dale Filed: 07/20/?0:J.7 l':nlry ID: 4lili90ll4

5 of 11

Kelli testified for the government as well. She began by describing multiple

instances of abuse during her tumultuous relationship with Madison. After one such

incident, Kelli called the police when she found a rifle between the mattresses in

Madison's bedroom. Apparently, the police seized the weapon, and Madison later

admitted to Kelli the gun was his. Madison was never charged despite being a felon

who could not legally possess a gun. Kelli then shared what she knew about

Madison's brief history as .a drng dealer. In addition to her general awareness that

Madison bought, sold, and used methamphetamine, Kelli was present for two

purchases Madison made from Suhr. On both occasions Madison paid "around a

thousand" dollars for a quantity that was about the size of a "tennis ball," figures

consistent with an ounce (about 28.3 grams) ofmethamphetamine. That said, Kelli

made clear she was not around every time Madison met with Suhr.

The district court found the government "pretty easily establishe[ cl]" its burden

to prove Madison was responsible for 519.1 grams of pure methamphetamine, 3 and

considered the method used to calculate the purity level to be "perfectly appropriate."

Thus, the district court adopted the PSR and agreed the advisory Guidelines range

was 168-210 months. As for any variance, the district court recognized there were

"a lot of moving parts in this case." There were mitigating factors like Madison's

drug and gambling addictions, "history of some mental illness," and supportive

family. But there were also aggravating factors like Madison's gun possession, "a

long career of conunitting crimes," and the credible allegations of domestic assault

made against him. To the district court, these factors "balance[d] each other out."

Yet the district court varied down anyway, reasoning the overall quantity calculation

was based on "very imprecise" (but sufficient) evidence and fearing a withinGuidelines sentence would be "too severe" given how close Madison was to the 500grnm threshold that had raised his base offense level. The district court gave Madison

3

This amount does not include the 24.5 grams from the controlled buy or the

two "ball size" quantities Kelli said she saw Madison purchase from Suhr,

-4-

/\flpullal<, Cnso: Hi ,no1

Appendix B, page ,1 of 9

F>ane: ~

Date Filml: 07/?0/2017 Entry ID: 4559084

6 of 11

I

"the benefit of the doubt" and sentenced him to 140 months in prison-28 months

below the bottom of his advisory Guidelines range. Madison appeals.

II.

DISCUSSION

A.

Drug Quantity and Purity

Madison argues the government did not meet its burden to hold him

responsible for 519.1 grams of pure methamphctamine and the district court erred in

concluding otherwise. Sec United States v. Houston, 338 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir.

2003) ("The govel'nment bears the burden of proving drng quantity by a

preponderance of the evidence."). The district court's conclusion as to drug quantity

is a factual one we review for clear error, and "we will only reverse when the entire

record definitely and firmly illustrates that the lower court made a mistake." United

States v. Marshall, 411 F.3d 891, 894 (8th Cir. 2005). For quantity calculations, a

clear error exists when there is insufficient evidence or a misapplication of the law.

See United States v. Walker, 688 F.3d 416, 420-21 (8th Cir.2012). Conversely, clear

error does not exist just b_ecause the district court relied on imprecise infonnation,

provided the evidence "has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable

acc,1racy." U.S.S.G. § 6Al.3(a); accord Walker, 688 F.3d at 423 ("A sentencing

court may 'determine drug quantity ,\sing imprecise evidence, so long as the record

reflects a basis for the court's decision."' (quoting United States v. Bradley, 643 F.3d

1121, I 126-27 (8th Cir. 2011))).

Madison's argument on this point is twofold. First, Madison claims he only

acquired about 42.5 grams of methamphetarnine from Suhr, not 323.2 grams as found

by the district court. The primary piece of evidence supporting the district court's

finding is the post-proffer report, which states Madison admitted to paying Suhr

between $3,200 and $3,600 for a quarter pound (about I 13.4 grams) of

methamphetamine on at least three occasions. Sergeant Hansen conoborated the

report, noting it was consistent with the notes taken dul'ing the interview. According

to Madison, this evidence is "contradicted by several other more reliable pieces of

-5-

Appendix B, page 5 of 9

/\ppe:llillc, C:w;r,: lri-'.l:191

i>aqe: 5

DDlc Fllecl: 07/20/2D:L7 Entry ID: 1ll1li90G!J

7 of 11

information." For in.stance, Suhr told officers he only sold Madison a total of 42.5

grams of methamphetamine, an "estimate" Madison later "adopted" as his own.

Other evidence showed Madison routinely dealt in quantities smaller than a quarter

pound.

These conflicting accounts required the district court to decide which evidence

was more credible: the post-proffer report and Sergeant Hansen's testimony, or Suhr's

statement and such evidence that Madison often dealt in smaller quantities. The

district court creditcd the government's evidence, and thus found Madison admitted

to the quartet-pound transactions with Suhr. We decline Madison's invitation to

overrule that finding. To begin, a district court's credibility determinations are

"virt1tally unreviewable on appeal." United States v. Symonds, 260 F.3d 934, 936

(8th Cir. 2001). We do not agree with Madison that his evidence is "more reliable"

or compelling. As for Suhr' s comment, a court is not obligated to disbelieve evidence

of a defendant's prior admission in favor of a subsequent self-serving statement by

a third-party that the defendant then chooses to adopt. See, ~ ' United States v.

Hicks, 411 F.3d 996, 998 (8th Cir. 2005) (affirming reliance on a previous admission

where the district court "did not find [the defendant's] changed account credible");

Houston, 338 F.3d at 880-81 (finding a quantity determination "well-supported"

when based on an officer's testimony about the defendant's prior admission, even

though the defendant later testified the amount was ".overstated"). The evidence

Madison often dealt in smaller amounts fares no better, because it does not foreclose

the possibility Madison also purchased larger quantities from time to time. Once the

district court found Madison did indeed admit to the large transactions with Sulu·, the

district court was then entitled to rely on that admission. See Hicks, 411 F.3d at 998

("When a defendant makes admissions regarding drug quantity, a court may rely on

the admissions to establish the base offense level.").

Second, Madison contends the unrecovered drugs "should have been treated

as methamphetmnine mixture," in which case his base offense level would have been

-6-

/\ppull:it,-, C,i"r,: I (i<U'Jl

Appendix B, page 6 of 9

F',ttJC: 6

Datt, rilcid: 0//?0/'!0l'/ [nlry Ill: 11bli9DB4

8 of 11

30, not 34. See U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.I(c)(5). This contention is based on the fact law

e11forcement never seized or tested any of the methamphetamine he admitted to

purchasing, i.e., there was no direct evidence of purity, However, officers did seize

and test quantities from each of Madison's suppliers, with every stash having a purity

rate of95% or higher, i.e., there was indirect evidence of purity. The PSR and district

court relied on these tests and applied the average purity rate for each dealer to the

amounts Madison obtained from Tilahun, Navrkal, and Suhr, respectively.

The circumstances here arc relatively common in drug-conspiracy cases-law

enforcement often 'is unable to recover all the methamphctamine a defendant is

deemed responsible for at sentencing. As a result, our rnles on determining purity for

unrecovered quantities are well-established: "The government may prove the total

quantity of actual methamphetamine in a series of transactions by testing the purity

of a seized quantity and applying the percentage of actual methamphetamine in the

tested quantity to the unrecovered quantities." Houston, 338 F.3d at 879; see also

United States v. Mesner, 377 F.3d 849, 852-53 (8th Cir. 2004) ("To calculate the

achial methamphetamine quantity, the district court was required to apply the

percentage of actual methamphetamine found in the methamphetamine seized from

[the defendant] to the unrccovercd ... methamphetamine he aclmowledged."). Even

if there were no quantity recovered at all, the government can still prove purity

through circumstantial evidence, like "an expert's testimony as to the normal purity

ofmethamphetamine produced in a lab." Houston, 338 F.3d at 879; see also Walker,

688 F.3d at 423 ("[W]e have consistently rejected arguments demanding direct

evidence of drug identity, quantity, or purity.").

The district court's approach here is in line with these rules. The government

provided Jab results for over 315 grams ofmethamphetamine seized from Madison,

Tilahun, Navrkal, and Suhr. These 3 I 5 grams came from ten separately seized

quantities, one from Madison and nine from his suppliers.

None of the

-7-

/\ppellal(c C:a:;e: 1(,.3:101

Appendix B, page 7 of 9

l"R\Je: 1

Dnt(" l'ilecl: 07/20/2011 Entry ID: tl!5fi'.l084

9 of 11

rneU1amphetamine had a purity rate below 95%. 4 We agree with the district court

these tests reflect "sufficient sample sizes" that could be used as the bases for

calculating and using average purity rates. See Mesner, 377 F.3d at 850, 852-53;

Houston, 33 8 F.3d at 879; cf. United States v. Fairchild, 189 F.3d 769, 778 (8th Cir.

1999) (acknowledging lab results ofan admittedly "small portion" of drugs "standing

alone may be insufficient" to establish purity). The government also elicited expert

testimony that methamphetamine from dealers in Sioux City is often "97, 98, 99

percent pure," a form of circumstantial evidence that bolsters tl1e inferences drawn

from the tests. Sec Houston, 338 F.3d at 879. The district court did not clearly en

in finding Madison responsible for more than 500 grams of pure metharnphetamine.

B,

Firearm Possession

Madison also claims the district court clearly erred h1 crediting Kelli's

allegation that Madison possessed a rifle, and then considering that fact when

fashioning his sentence. See United States v. Hairy Chin, 850 F.3d 398,402 (8th Cir.

2017) (per curiam) ("A significant procedural error can occur if the district

.

'

court ... selects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,"). As Madison

emphasizes, Kelli's testimony was the only evidence regarding the gun-the

government did not offer any corroborative evidence, nor did Madison present any

contradictory evidence. That makes this a credibility issue, and the district court had

to decide whether it believed Kelli's testimony. The district court expressly found her

testimony credible, both generally and in specific regMd to the rifle. Given our oftquoted precedent on this issue-a district court's credibility determination is

"'quintessentially a judgment call and virtually unassailable on appeal,"' United

States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 928, 938 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v.

Quintana, 340 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir. 2003))-the district court did not clearly err

4

The following is a breakdown of the amounts seized and average purity rates

used in the PSR: from Madison, one test of 24,5 grams, 99.1 % pure; from Tilahun,

one test of 55 .6 grams, 98% pure; from Navrkal, four tests of 141.2 grams total, 99%

pure; and from Suhr, four tests of96.l grams total, 95% pure.

-810 of :Ll

Appendix B, page 8 of 9

Appellale Cns,:: JG.,l'.:HJ:L

F'aue: ll

Dale Hh,id: 0//20/20:IJ l,11try ID: 45G90B4

in crediting and considering Kelli's testimony about the rifle when determining

Madison's sentence.

C.

Substantive Reasonableness

Lastly, Madison posits his 140-month sentence is substantively unreasonable

for "a low-to-mid-level drng dealer," especially given "relevant mitigating factors"

and "flaws" in the Guidelines for methamphetamine offenses.

See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). We review a sentence's reasonableness under a "highly deferential"

abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Roberts, 747 F.3d 990,992 (8th Cir.

2014). The district court imposed a sentence 28 months below the bottom of

Madison's advisory Guidelines range. We have declared it "nearly inconceivable"

to imagine a case where the district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence and

"abused its disc·retion in not varying downward still further." United States v.

Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009). This case is not an exception to that

general rule. The district court thoughtfully weighed the appropriate factors, and

even accepted some of Madison's arguments for leniency (just not to the extent

Madison would have liked). Madison's sentence is not substantively unreasonable.

Ill.

CONCLUSION

The district court did not clearly err in any of its factual determinations; nor did

the district court abuse its discretion in sentencing Madison to 140 months in prison.

Affirmed.

-911 of 11

Appendix B, pag·e 9 of 9

/\ppellulc Case: JG 33QJ

F'a(Je: 9

Dale Filed: 07/?0/?0:l.7 E:11lry ID: 1!!159084

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No: 16-3391

United States of America

Appel lee

v.

Johnny Madison

Appellant

Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of lowa - Sioux City

(5: I5-cr-04072-LTS-J)

ORDER

The petition for rehearing en bane is denied. The petition for rehearing by the panel is

also denied.

Judge Kelly did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

August 24, 2017

Order Entered at the Direction of the Court:

Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Isl Michael E. Gans

/\ppr:ll,11,, Cu,-:u: JCi-T.lDl

Appendix C, page 1 (of 1)

F'aoe: :I

Dalu r:ilell: OSll11/:JO:L7 Entry ID: tl57HJ28

AO 2'15 ll

I

(!{\!\'. OWi l) Judgnll'Ut in HCdminnl Cu:;~1

Slwct I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District ol' lown

)

UNITED STATES or AMERICA

I .

)'JlJDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL GASE

"·

)

,JOHNNY MADISON

( Case Number:

0862 5: 15CR04072-00 I

l) USM Number:

.

14806-029

) B1·nt1ic)'H)'1111_1111 nscn ...

lkfcnJunt's i\Unrm•y

TJIE DEFI~NDANT:

_U~\~_d 2 11f _tt1_~J_!~.£~-~~1-~-~£1J__l_l_ly~I. 111_1 -~11~·_c_1_1_1hct -~1_~0_1 ~ _

lg] pl ended guilty to count(s)

-------------

0 pleaded 11010 contcndcrc lo count(s)

-

which was 111:ccptcd by the cour1.

-------·--~----

D was found guilt)' on count(,)

a!\cr a pica of not gllilty.

The dcfondnnt is udjudicalcd guilty of'lhcsc offenses:

Title & Scrtlo11

Nntllrl! of OffellSl1

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(n)(I),

84\(IJ)(l)(IJ), nnd 846

Conspiracy In Dlsll·ihutc ~O Cn1111s 01· Mol'c of

1\l~·th11mphl.'!nml11c i\l'tunl

21 U.S.C:. §§ 84l(n)(l)

llllcl 84\(b)(l)(ll)

Distribution of :i Grnms or i\lc1n• of i\ll'!hnmplw1a111!11C'

Al'tmll

Count

Offl'nsc Ended

,llll)'20\5

I

2

117/01/21115

\

The dcfrndant is sentenced us provided in pages 3 through

the Sentencing Rcfor111 r\ct of' 19811.

0 The dcfcndnnt has been round not guilty on co11n((s)

D Coum(s)

_0

6

ofthisJ11dgnwnt. The sentence is t1nposcil pursuant to

is

O 11n, di:m1isscd on the molion oflhc U1\itcd States.

It is ordered that the de fondant mu:,;t notify the Uni led States ntt(m1cy for this district within JO days o f'nny c\umgc of r'.iamc, residence,

mailing address until nll lines, rcsti!ution, cos1s 1 mid spcciul as!rnsm11c1Hs imposed by !his jm!gmcnl u1u n1lly pnid. If ordered to pny

1cs11tution 1 the dcfondnnt must notlly the corn I 1111tl United Stn!cs 11lto111cy ol'mntcrinl cl 11\)g.cs in cco1101uic ci1cu111stn11ccs, :

01

;~::~;~t·· },:i

81111umm,1'J1ultl'

r

:\,J

i

--- -~

l,t•onnl'd T. 8(1·n11d

U.S. l>lstrkt C:ou1·1,Judge

Nn!IIL' nml TillL· uf Jutltl\'

/

.

llnl1·

f> (

1,

I(,

Appendix D, page 1 of 6

Case 5:15-cr-04072-L TS Document 63 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 6

-

AO 245 B

(Rev, 09111) Judipncnt In a Cr/min11l Case

Shcot 2 - Imprisonment

Judsmont - Paue _ _,,_Z-1- of

DEFENDANT:

CASE NUMBER:

6

JOHNNY MADISON

0862 5:15CR04072-001

IMPRISONMENT

•

[g} 1'he court makes tho following recommendations to the Burenu of Prisons:

Thnt the dcfcndnnt be deslgnntcd to the FC! In El Reno, Oldnhomn.

1'hnt the defcndnnt pnrtlclpnto In the Bul'cnn of Prisons' 500-Hour Comprehensive Rcsldentlnl Drug

Program or nn Jtltca·nate substnnce nbuse trontmeut program.

buse Ti·entment

0 The defendant is remnndcd to the custody of the United Slates Marshal.

0 The defendant shall surrender to the United States Mnrnhnl for this dislrlcl:

D nt ________ D ·a.m. 0 p.m. on

D as notified by the United States Marshal.

D The defendant shnll surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau orPrlsons:

0 before 2 p.m. on

D as nolified by the United States Marslml,

D us notified by the Probation or Pretrinl Services Office.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

Defendant delivered on

to

at - - - - - - - - - - - - - , with a corllfied copy of this judgment.

UNITED STATES MARSHAL

By ~--~'"""'"""'~"""'"'"'""'"'"'""'"""'1-,.,-----~

DEPUTY UNITBD STATES MNIBI AL

Appendix D, page 2 of 6

Case 5:15-cr-04072-L TS Document 63 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 6

AO 24S D

(Rev. 09/11) Judgment in a Crimim1I Cnse

Shoot J- Supervised Rolcaso

Judgment-Pogo -~3--t--- of

DEFENDANT:

CASE NUMBER:

6

JOHNNY MADISON

0862 S:15CR04072-001

SUPERVISED RELEASE

·I

The defendont must report to tl1e probulion offiee In the district to which the defcndnnt is rolcnsed within 72 hours of release from the custody

I

The defendant sh11II not commit another federal, stoto or local ori1n'e.

!

The defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled substance. The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use ofij' n controlled

substance. The defendant shall submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and ut least iwo per odlc drug tests

thereafter, as determined by the court.

!

D The abovo drug testing conditlori Is suspended, based on the court's determination that the defendant poses a low rl/k of future

ofthe,Durcau of Prisons.

substance ubusc, (Check. If 011pllcabfe.)

The defendant shall not possess a firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or any other dangerous weapon. (Check. 'tfapplicab/e,)

D

The defendant shall cooperate in the collection of DNA as directed by tile probation officer, (Clltc~ lfapplicabt,.)

The defendant shall comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 u.s.c;, § 16901, et seq,)

as directed by the pmbatlon officer, the Bureau of Prisons, or any state sex offender reglstrntlon ugeney In which hci or she resides,

works, ls n student, or was convicted of a qualifying offense, (Check. (fappfl(able.J

D The defendant shall participate In an approved program for domestic violence. (Chee~ tfapp/fcabl,.)

If this Judgment imposes a fine or restliutlon, ii is a condition or supervised release that the defendant pay in accordance with the Schedule

of Payments sheet of this judgment.

The dofendnnt must comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court as well as with any addili nal conditions on

tl1e attached page.

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION

I)

2)

3)

4)

5)

the defendant shall not leave the Judicial district without the permission of the court or probation officer;

the defendant shall report to the probatlo11 officer In a manner a11d frequency directed by the court or probation o 1ccr,

the defendant shall answer truthfully nil inquiries by the probation office,· and follow the Instructions of the proba Ion officer;

the defenda11t shall suppo1t his or her dependents nnd meet other fnmily rosponslbilllles;

the defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation, unless excused by the probnllon officer for schooling trnlning, or other

ncoeptablc reasons;

6)

7)

8)

9)

I0)

11)

the defendant shall notify the probation officer at least ten dnys prior to any change In residence or employment;

the defendant shall l'Cfrnlll from excessive use of alcohol nnd shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or admln stcr any

controlled substance or any pnrnphernnlla related to any controlled substunces, except as prescribed by u physlola ;

the defendant shall not frequent places whe1·e controlled substances are Illegally sold, used, distributed, or admlnl tered;

tho defendant shall not nssoclate with any persons engaged In criminal activity and shall not associate with any po son convicted of

a felony, unless granted 11ormission to do so by the probation officer;

the defendant shall permit a probation officer to visit him or her 111 any time nt home ot· elsewhere and shnll peri 1it confiscation of

any contraband observed in plain view of the probation officer;

the defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being orrested or questioned by a law en orcement officer;

12)

the defendant shall nal entel' Into ;my agrecmctll to net as nn Informer or n special ngent of a law enforcement a ency wilhoul the

pem1is:sion of the court; and

13)

as directed by the probation office!', the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occ11Sloned by the de endmll's criminal

record or personal history or characteristics and shall permit the probation officer to make such notifications a 1d to confinn the

defendant's compliance with such notification requirement.

Appendix D, page 3 of 6

Case 5:15-cr-04072-L TS Document 63 Filecl 08/03/16 Page 3 of 6

AO 24!i B

(Rov. 09/11} Judgmcnl In uCrlmlnol Caso

Slioct JC- S11p1?rvlscd Rolcuso

(NOTE: Identify Chong , with Asterisks('))

Judgn1cnt~Pogo

DEFENDANT:

CASE NUMBER:

4

o(

6

JOHNNY MADISON

0862 5:15CR04072-001

SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION

The defe11da11111111st comply w//h ///efol/ow/11g spec/al co11i///lam as ordered by the Court a11rN11111/c111e11ted by the U.S. Pro at/011 Office:

I) The defendant must partlcipntc In and·successfully complete n 1,rogrnm of testing and lreatment for substn ce abuse.

2) Tbe defendant must not use alcohol nnd Is prohibited from entering nny establishment that holds Itself out t the public to be

n bar or tavern.

3) The defendant must pnrt!cipate In a mental hcnlth evaluation nod/or t.rcatment program. The defenda t must take nll

medicattons prescribed to the defendant by a licensed psychiatrist or physician.

4) If not employed nt n regular lawful occupation, ns deemed npprop,·late by the United States Probation Offif•• the defendant

must J>nrticlpnte In employment workshops and report, as directed, to the United States Probation qmce to provide

ve,·lflcolion or dally Job search results or other employment ,·elated activities. In the event the defend''.1t falls to secure

employment, jinrtlclpnte In the employmenl worl<Shops or provide verifiwtlon of doily Job search mnlls, th;e defendant may

be required to perform up to 20 hours of community service per week until employed.

'

SJ The defendant must not be on the p1·ernlses or nny casino during any period of the defendant's supcrvlslo~. The defendant

must not pnrtlclpnte In nny form of gombllng1 Including but not limited to, lotteries, pull-tab cards, cnril games, on-line

wagering, horse and dog racing, nnd sports betting.

I

6) The defendant must submit to a search of the defcndnnt•s person, residence, adjacent structures. , office or v1hicJe, conducted

by n United Slates Probation Officer al a rensonnblo time and In n reosonnblo manner, bnsed upon reason~ble suspicion of

contra~nnd or evidence of n violation of a condition of relco,o, Failure to submit to o search moy be grounds for revocation.

The defendant must wnrn nny other residents that the residence or vehicle mny be subject to searches pursuant to this

condlllon. This condition moy be invoked with or without the assistance of low enforcement, including the United States

Marshals Service.

Upon a finding of• violation of supervision, I understand the Court mny: (I) revoke supervision; (2) extend the term of upervlslon;

and/or (3) modify the condition of supnrvlslon.

These conditions have been read to me. I fully understand the conditions and have been provided a copy of them.

Defendant

Date

U.S. Probation Officcr/Dcsignatcd Witness

Date

Appendix D, page 4 of 6

Case 5:15-cr-04072-LTS Document 63 Filed 08/03/16 Page 4 of 6 ·

AO 245 B

(Rev, 09/11 )JudlJlllent In a Criminal Case

Sheet 5 - Criminal Monelory Pcrmllics

Jud9ment-Page _s____ of

DEFENDANT:

CASE NUMBER:

6

JOHNNY MADISON .

0862 5:1SCR04072-001

CRIMINAL MONETARY PENALTIES

The defendant must pay the total criminal monetary penalties under the schedule of payments on Sheet 6.

Asse§·:nncnt

TOTALS

$

film!

200

$

D The dctcmlinatlon of restitution is deferred until

Restitution

0

$ 0

, An Amended Judgmenl In a Criminal Cczse (AOUJOr, will be entered

nfter such determination,

0 The defendant must make restitution (lnch1dlng community restin,tlon) to the following payees In the amount listed below.

lfthe defendant makes a partial payment, each payee shall receive an approximately proportioned payment, unless ipeolfled otl1erwlse

in tho priority order or percentnge payment column below. However, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(1), all nonfoderal victims must be

paid before the United States is paid.

'

Nnme of Payee

'l'OTALS

0

0

0

Totol Los:i•

$ _ _ _ _ _ __

Restitution amount ordernd pursuant to plea agreement $

Restitution Ordered

rrJJl'i!!!OJ:.!l'i!.lt~l!!r:.r.!l!S.!!!!!!!!lli:

$ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

---------

The defendant must pay interest on restitution and n fine of more than $2,500, unless the restitution or fine Is paid 'n full before the

fifteenth day after the date ofthe Judgment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3612(t), All of the payment options on Sheet may be subject

to penalties for delinquency and default, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 36 I2(g).

The co111t determined that the derenciant does not have the ability to pay interest and It Is 01·dered that:

0 the interest requirement is waived for the

D fine O restitution.

0 the interest requirement for the O fine O restitution is modified as follows:

[

• Findings for the. total amount of losses ore required under Chapters I09A, 110, 11 OA, and 113A of Title 18 for offenser committed on or

nfter September 13, 1994, but beforn Apl'il 23, 1996.

Appendix D, page 5 of 6

Case 5:15-cr-04072-L TS Document 63 Filed 08/03/16 Page 5 of 6

AO 245 O

(Rev, 09/11) Judgment tn oCrhninnl Cnso

Shcel 6 - Crlmlnnl Monciluy Pcnalllcs

Judgrncnt-,...Pagc __6-+- of

DEFENDANT:

CASE NUMBER:

6

JOHNNY MADISON

0862 5:15CR040.72-00I

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS

Hnvlng assessed 1hc defend1111t's nblllty to pay, paymenl ofthe 1otal crlmlnnl monetary penalties Is due as follows:

A

[8J Lump sum payment of$ ---=2.=-00=--- due Immediately, balance due

0 not later than

D In accordnnce with

, or

D

C,

D

D,

D

D F below; or

D C D D,or 0 F below); or

n

0 Payment to begin !mmedlntcly (muy be combined with

C

D Poyment In equnl

D

D PTiyment in equal . • .. - - - - - · (e.g .. weekly, 111011,My, quartvrly) installments of $ - - - - - - - - - - over oI period of

I

(e.g.. weekly, 111011/hly, quarterly/ Jnstnllments of $

over period of

(e.g., monrhs or years), to commence

(e.g., JO or 60 days) after the date of this Judgm1enti or

(e.g., mo11rhs or years)1 to commence

(e.g., JO or 60 days) after release from imprlso~ment to a

term of supervision; or

I

E

0

F

0 Special Instructions regarding the payment of criminal monetary penalties:

Payment during the term of supervised release wl!I commence within

(e.g., 30 or 60 days/ attef release from

imprisonment. The cout1 will set the pnyment plan based on an assessment of the defendant's nblllty to pay at'thnt time; or

Unless tho court has expressly ordered otherwise, If this Judgment Imposes Imprisonment, payment of criminal monetar penalties is due

during Imprisonment. All cl'imlnal monetary pcnoltlcs, except those poyments mode through the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Inmate

Financial Responsibility Program, are made to the c!et·k of the courl,

The defondnnt shnll receive crndit for nil payments previously made toward any criminal monetary penoltles imposed.

0

Joint nnd Scvernl

Defendant and Co-Do fondant Names ond Cose Numbers (l11cl11dl11g defe11da11t m1111ber) 1 Tola I Amount, Joint nnd Sove al Amount,

and corresponding payee, lfnpproprlnte.

0

0

The defendant shnll pny the cost of prosecution.

The defendant shall pny the following court cost(s):

D The defendant shall forfeit the defendnnt's Interest In the following property to the United States:

Payments shall be applied In the following order: (I) assessment, (2) restitution pr!nclpnl, (3) restitution interest, (4) fine rincipnl,

(5) fine interest, (6) community restitution, (7) pennllies, and (8) costs, including cost of prosecution nnd court costs.

Appendix D, pag·e 6 of 6

Case 5:15-cr-04072-L TS Document 63 Filed 08/03/16 Page 6 of 6