Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Timothy L. Richards, Petitioner v. United States
Supreme Court briefApr 29, 2026
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. ______
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
TIMOTHY L. RICHARDS,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit
APPENDIX
JEROME T. FLYNN
Federal Community Defender
JARED HAMERNICK
Assistant Federal Defender
Counsel of Record
FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEFENDERS, INC.
2929 Carlson Dr., Ste. 101
Hammond, Indiana 46323
(219) 937-8020
jared_hamernick@fd.org
Counsel for Petitioner
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR APPENDIX
Appendix A
Opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, Dec. 8, 2025 ............................................... App. 1a
Appendix B
Order of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit Denying Rehearing, Feb. 4, 2026 .............. App. 8a
Appendix C
Sentencing Transcript
Northern District of Indiana, Feb. 11, 2025 .................................... App. 9a
Appendix D
Judgment in a Criminal Case,
Northern District of Indiana, Feb. 11, 2025 .................................. App. 34a
Case: 25-1357
Document: 30
Filed: 12/08/2025
Pages: 7
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 25-1357
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY L. RICHARDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.
No. 1:10CR6-001 – Holly A. Brady, Chief Judge.
____________________
ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 2025 — DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 2025
____________________
Before HAMILTON, ST. EVE, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges.
ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. After Timothy Richards violated numerous conditions of his supervised release, the district court
sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment. Richards appeals
his sentence, arguing the district court erred by increasing the
length of his sentence for the purpose of rehabilitation. Tapia
v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011). We affirm.
App. 1a
APPENDIX A
Case: 25-1357
Document: 30
Filed: 12/08/2025
Pages: 7
I. Background
In 2012, the district court sentenced Richards to 180
months’ imprisonment and six years of supervised release following his convictions for drug and firearm offenses. Richards completed his term of imprisonment and began supervised release in 2022. His conditions of supervised release included keeping lawful employment, notifying his probation
officer of changes of address or employment, and not possessing controlled substances. Richards did not comply with
these conditions. In May 2024, the homeless shelter where
Richards resided suspended him, but Richards failed to notify
his probation officer of this change in residence. Further, he
affirmatively misrepresented his place of residence in July
2024. That same month, Richards left his job without finding
another. Yet he did not notify his probation officer of his
change in employment status. Richards also failed multiple
drug tests. Richards’s probation officer petitioned to revoke
his supervised release in November 2024.
Richards admitted these violations at a February 2025 revocation hearing. The district court determined that the applicable Guidelines range for these violations combined with
Richards’s criminal history was 18 to 24 months’ imprisonment. The government requested that the court sentence Richards to 30 months’ imprisonment with supervised release
upon completion. Richards requested 18 months’ imprisonment without additional supervised release, contending that
the violations were not particularly serious. While considering Richards’s request, the district court said it was “struggling” with the fact that Richards had not satisfied his original
sentence and “he really has four years of supervised release
that he hasn’t satisfied.” Both the government and Richards’s
App. 2a
Case: 25-1357
Document: 30
Filed: 12/08/2025
Pages: 7
counsel emphasized the futility of additional supervision;
Richards would continue to violate the conditions because he
wanted to live his life independently—even if it meant being
homeless and jobless. Richards explained he would rather return to prison than continue under his probation officer’s supervision.
The district court revoked Richards’s supervised release
and imposed a 36-month sentence. The district court explained it came to this decision by considering the “seriousness of the admitted violations, the defendant’s personal history and characteristics, the defendant’s criminal history and
the term of imprisonment and term of supervised release initially imposed by the Court in this case.” It also recognized
“the defendant’s stated intention to not comply with the further term of supervised release if the Court were to impose
one.” The district court said, “a sentence of 36 months of imprisonment shall be imposed to hold the defendant accountable for the violations.”
The district court continued:
The sentence is imposed for the following reasons: While it is outside the guideline range, the
Court nonetheless finds that it provides the defendant with needed correctional treatment in
the most effective matter, and also adequately
takes into account the history and characteristics of the defendant. Therefore, it is ordered
that the defendant’s term of supervision is revoked and the defendant is hereby committed
to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 36 months of
App. 3a
Case: 25-1357
Document: 30
Filed: 12/08/2025
Pages: 7
imprisonment to hold the defendant accountable for the violations.
After recommending that the Bureau of Prisons designate
a specific facility for Richards and give him the opportunity
to participate in the Residential Drug Abuse Program, the district court added: “It is ordered that upon release from imprisonment … the defendant shall be discharged from any further
term of supervised release.”
II. Discussion
On appeal, Richards argues that the district court committed a Tapia error because it primarily focused on rehabilitation
when sentencing him to 36 months’ imprisonment. Although
the parties disagree on the proper standard of review, the district court did not err under either standard, so we need not
decide that question. *
* We recognize that we have not always applied a consistent standard
of review in Tapia cases. Compare United States v. Shaw, 39 F.4th 450, 456
(7th Cir. 2022) (applying de novo review), and United States v. Wilcher,
91 F.4th 864, 869–70 (7th Cir. 2024) (same), with United States v. Long,
79 F.4th 882, 885 (7th Cir. 2023) (applying plain error review), and United
States v. Kopp, 922 F.3d 337, 340, 342 n.2 (7th Cir. 2019) (same).
While we leave the opportunity to reconcile these cases for another
day, we address the government’s contention that the Supreme Court’s
dicta in Esteras v. United States, 606 U.S. 185, 202–03 (2025), abrogates our
opinions in United States v. Wood, 31 F.4th 593, 598 (7th Cir. 2022), and
United States v. Pennington, 908 F.3d 234, 238 (7th Cir. 2018). Because the
Supreme Court did not discuss Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51(a)
in Esteras, we previously rejected this argument, see United States v. Stewart, 148 F.4th 501, 509 n.3 (7th Cir. 2025), and do so again here.
App. 4a
Case: 25-1357
Document: 30
Filed: 12/08/2025
Pages: 7
A Tapia error occurs when a district court focuses “exclu-
sively or disproportionately on rehabilitation in deciding …
how long a [prison] term should be.” Long, 79 F.4th at 889;
see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) (“[I]mprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation.”).
While a district court can urge the Bureau of Prisons to place
a defendant in a prison-treatment program, United States v.
Lucas, 670 F.3d 784, 795 (7th Cir. 2012), it cannot make such
placement the driving force behind the length of the sentence.
See Shaw, 39 F.4th at 459.
Richards asserts that the district court committed a Tapia
error by lengthening his sentence 12 months over the Guidelines range. Richards supports his argument with the district
court’s statement that it was imposing a sentence outside the
Guidelines range because “it provides the defendant with
needed correctional treatment.” But Richards mischaracterizes the Tapia inquiry. For a district court to lengthen a defendant’s sentence improperly for the purpose of rehabilitation,
there must be an “indication that the district court chose the
length of the sentence based upon the greater opportunities
for rehabilitation a longer prison sentence allowed.” Lucas,
670 F.3d at 795. In other words, the sentence must have been
longer than the one the district court would have ordered had
rehabilitation not driven it. See Kopp, 922 F.3d at 342–43
(changing sentence from 18 to 20 months so the defendant
could participate in a drug abuse program). A district court
can stay within the Guidelines and still make this error, see id.
at 340, so a sentence over the Guidelines range alone does not
establish a Tapia error. And here, Richards provides no such
comparison to what the district court would have otherwise
ordered.
App. 5a
Case: 25-1357
Document: 30
Filed: 12/08/2025
Pages: 7
Richards maintains that his supervised release violations
were not serious, so the district court could only have considered rehabilitation when setting his sentence at 36 months.
But as the government correctly notes, the district court considered a myriad of grounds for Richards’s sentence: Richards’s personal history and characteristics; his criminal history and original sentence; his stated refusal to comply with
the conditions of supervised release; and his numerous violations of the conditions of his supervised release. And even if
the violations were not serious, there were many.
Reviewing the entirety of the sentencing transcript,
see United States v. Durham, 967 F.3d 575, 579–80 (7th Cir.
2020), suggests another reason for the length of Richards’s
sentence: the district court, seeing it was fruitless for Richards
to remain on supervised release, chose the above-Guidelines
sentence because it was concerned about Richards not completing his original sentence. Richards had served only two of
the six years of supervised release in his original sentence. The
district court pointed out that he had not satisfied the original
sentence and “he really has four years of supervised release
that he hasn’t satisfied.” It was struggling with that fact. It
would make sense then for the district court to make this compromise: there was no supervised release after Richards’s
term of imprisonment—as Richards desired—but Richards
would serve three years’ imprisonment, meaning he would
nearly satisfy his original sentence.
While it is true the district court also reasoned the sentence
“provides the defendant with needed correctional treatment
in the most effective manner,” this phrase alone—a restatement of the rehabilitation factor of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)—does
not show, as Richards suggests, that the district court
App. 6a
Case: 25-1357
Document: 30
Filed: 12/08/2025
Pages: 7
disproportionately focused on rehabilitation when setting the
length of Richards’s sentence. The district court was required
to consider rehabilitation before revoking Richards’s supervision and imposing a sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Shaw,
39 F.4th at 459. It did so properly by stating this factor and
recommending that Richards participate in prison programs.
See Lucas, 670 F.3d at 795.
*
*
*
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
App. 7a
Case: 25-1357
Document: 41
Filed: 02/04/2026
Pages: 1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
February 4, 2026
Before
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1357
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.
v.
No. 1:10-cr-00006-HAB-SLC-1
TIMOTHY L. RICHARDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Holly A. Brady,
Chief Judge.
ORDER
On December 19, 2025, the defendant-appellant filed a petition for rehearing and
rehearing en banc, and on January 20, 2026, the plaintiff-appellee filed an answer to the
petition. No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for
rehearing en banc * and the judges on the original panel have voted to deny rehearing. It
is, therefore, ORDERED that the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is
DENIED.
* Circuit Judges Doris L. Pryor and Rebecca Taibleson did not participate in the consideration of
this petition for rehearing en banc.
App. 8a
APPENDIX B
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
UNITED STATES of AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)CAUSE NO: 1:10-cr-6
v.
)
)
TIMOTHY RICHARDS,
)
Defendant.
)
--------------------------------TRANSCRIPT OF FINAL REVOCATION SENTENCING HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 11, 2025, BEFORE THE
HONORABLE HOLLY A. BRADY, UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
TERESA ASHCRAFT, AUSA
DAWN RANSOME, AUSA
3128 Federal Building
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
MICHELLE KRAUS, ESQ.
200 E. Main Street
Suite 905
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802
ALSO PRESENT:
The Defendant in person
Gregory Coleman, USPO
TINA GALLUCCI, RMR, CRR, FCRR
CERTIFIED REALTIME REPORTER
1300 South Harrison Street
Suite 2105
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802
tina_gallucci@innd.uscourts.gov
(260) 423-3060
Tina
App. 9a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
APPENDIX C
002
1
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were held on
2
February 11, 2025, in open court; the defendant appearing in
3
person and with his counsel:)
4
THE CLERK:
5
The Honorable Holly A. Brady
presiding.
THE COURT:
6
7
All rise.
Please be seated.
We're on the record now in the matter of the United States
8
of America versus Timothy Richards in case number 1:10-cr-6.
9
Let the record reflect that the government is being
10
represented by Assistant United States Attorneys Teresa
11
Ashcraft and Dawn Ransome.
12
States Probation Officer Gregory Coleman.
13
present in person and with his counsel, Michelle Kraus.
14
15
They are accompanied by United
The defendant is
We're here today for a final hearing with respect to the
revocation of Mr. Richards' term of supervised release.
16
Mr. Richards, during this hearing, I'll need to ask you
17
some questions, and you may also wish to make a statement on
18
your own behalf.
19
please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn.
20
So before we begin, I would ask that you
(Whereupon, the Defendant was administered the oath.)
21
THE DEFENDANT:
22
THE COURT:
Yes.
Please be seated.
Mr. Richards, do you
23
understand that you're now under oath, and if you answer any
24
of my questions falsely, or if you knowingly make any false
25
statements, your false answers or false statements could later
Tina
App. 10a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
003
1
be used against you in another prosecution for perjury?
2
THE DEFENDANT:
3
THE COURT:
4
THE DEFENDANT:
5
THE COURT:
6
THE DEFENDANT:
7
THE COURT:
8
THE DEFENDANT:
9
THE COURT:
10
THE DEFENDANT:
11
THE COURT:
12
Yes.
Do you understand that, sir?
Yes.
What's your date of birth?
June 3rd, 1969.
So you're 55?
Yes.
How far did you go in school?
Uh, graduated high school.
Okay.
Are you able to speak, read, write
and understand the English language?
13
THE DEFENDANT:
14
THE COURT:
Yes.
Have you been treated recently for any
15
mental illness or addiction to alcohol or narcotic drugs of
16
any kind?
17
THE DEFENDANT:
No, not recently.
18
THE COURT:
19
you most recently treated?
Okay.
20
THE DEFENDANT:
21
THE COURT:
22
THE DEFENDANT:
23
THE COURT:
When were you treated -- when were
Uh, I believe it was '23.
2023?
Mmm-mm.
Okay.
In the past 24 hours, have you
24
taken any drugs, pills or prescription medication or had any
25
alcoholic beverages to drink?
Tina
App. 11a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
004
1
THE DEFENDANT:
2
THE COURT:
3
No, ma'am.
Is there any reason you cannot understand
or participate fully in today's proceedings?
4
THE DEFENDANT:
5
THE COURT:
Nope.
Mr. Richards, did you receive a written
6
copy of the summary report of violations prepared by Officer
7
Coleman and filed on December 2nd, 2024, at docket entry 295,
8
detailing the alleged violations of your conditions of
9
supervision?
10
THE DEFENDANT:
11
THE COURT:
12
Have you fully discussed the alleged
violations and the case in general with Ms. Kraus?
13
THE DEFENDANT:
14
THE COURT:
15
Yes.
Yes.
Do you want me to read into the record
the alleged violations or do you waive the reading?
16
THE DEFENDANT:
Uh, you can read them, ma'am.
17
THE COURT:
18
ATTORNEY MICHELLE KRAUS:
Okay.
You want her to read these?
19
This is what you and I just talked about, or do you want her
20
to read them, or do you think you understand them sufficiently
21
to make an admission?
22
THE DEFENDANT:
23
ATTORNEY MICHELLE KRAUS:
24
THE COURT:
25
Okay.
Tina
App. 12a
She can read them.
Okay.
You want me to read them?
The summary report of violations provides the
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
005
1
defendant is alleged to have violated the following conditions
2
of release:
3
allegation, the defendant shall not possess a controlled
4
substance, the defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use
5
of a controlled substance, the defendant shall submit to one
6
drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment, and at
7
least two periodic tests thereafter as determined by the
8
Court.
9
Mandatory condition number 1, which is a new
Violation number 1 provides that on November 6, 2024, the
10
defendant signed an admission form admitting to smoking two
11
blunts containing marijuana on or about November 6, 2024.
12
previous allegations contained in the summary report provide
13
mandatory condition number 1, the defendant shall not possess
14
a controlled substance, the defendant shall refrain from any
15
unlawful use of a controlled substance, the defendant shall
16
submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from
17
imprisonment, and at least two periodic tests thereafter as
18
determined by the Court.
19
The
Violation number 1 provides that on July 31st, 2024, this
20
officer collected a urine sample from the defendant, which
21
yielded a positive result for the presence of marijuana.
22
defendant's (sic) admitted to smoking approximately three
23
joints containing marijuana on or about July 29th, 2024.
The
24
Standard condition number five provides that the defendant
25
shall work regularly at a lawful occupation, unless excused by
Tina
App. 13a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
006
1
the Probation Officer, for schooling, training or other
2
acceptable reasons.
3
Violation number 1 provides that the defendant has failed
4
to maintain lawful employment.
5
employed by Labor Works on July 2nd, 2024, and has not
6
provided any updated employment information.
7
The defendant was last
Standard condition number six provides the defendant shall
8
notify the Probation Officer at least 10 days prior to any
9
change of residence or employment.
10
Violation number 1 provides that on July 31st, 2024, the
11
defendant advised he was residing at the Fort Wayne Rescue
12
Mission.
13
Mission staff advised the defendant was involved in a physical
14
altercation with another resident on May 8th, 2024 and is
15
ineligible for all services until May 8th, 2026.
16
defendant has failed to notify this officer of any change in
17
his residence.
18
19
On September 24th, 2024, the Fort Wayne Rescue
The
Mr. Richards, do you fully understand what you've been
charged with having done or not having done?
20
THE DEFENDANT:
21
THE COURT:
Yes, ma'am.
Are you in any way dissatisfied with the
22
counsel, advice, and representation given to you by Ms. Kraus
23
in this case?
24
THE DEFENDANT:
25
THE COURT:
Tina
App. 14a
No, I'm not.
Mr. Richards, if I find that you violated
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
007
1
your conditions of supervised release, I'm req -- rather, I'm
2
authorized by law to do one of the following:
3
continue your term of supervision with or without modifying or
4
enlarging the conditions of your supervision; or two, I can
5
extend your term of supervision, if less than the authorized
6
maximum term of supervision was previously imposed; or three,
7
I can revoke your term of supervision and impose a term of
8
imprisonment of not more than five years, without giving you
9
credit for the time previously served on post-release
10
supervision and add a new term of supervised release of not
11
more than five years, less any term of imprisonment imposed
12
based upon the revocation.
13
One, I can
Do you understand that, sir?
14
THE DEFENDANT:
15
THE COURT:
Yes.
I'm also generally required by law to
16
revoke your term of supervision and impose a term of
17
imprisonment if I find, one, that you possessed a firearm,
18
ammunition, destructive device or any other dangerous weapon;
19
two, you possessed a controlled substance; three, you refused
20
to comply with required drug testing; or four, as part of your
21
required drug testing, you tested positive for illegal
22
controlled substance more than three times over the course of
23
one year.
24
Do you understand that, sir?
THE DEFENDANT:
25
Tina
App. 15a
Yes, ma'am.
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
008
THE COURT:
1
Mr. Richards, do you admit or deny the
2
alleged violations of the conditions of your supervision
3
described in the summary report?
4
THE DEFENDANT:
5
THE COURT:
I admit.
Mr. Richards, in a moment, I'm going to
6
ask Ms. Ashcraft to please summarize for us the material facts
7
showing the admitted violations of your supervision, and I'd
8
ask that you listen and pay very close attention to what she
9
says, because when she's done, I'm going to ask you if you
10
agree or disagree with what she says.
11
Can you do that for me?
12
THE DEFENDANT:
13
THE COURT:
14
Yes.
Ms. Ashcraft, can you please summarize
the factual basis showing the admitted violations?
ATTORNEY TERESA ASHCRAFT:
15
Yes, Judge.
The
16
government would present evidence that he was under the terms
17
of condition of supervised release, including mandatory
18
condition one, that he not possess a controlled substance and
19
refrain from unlawful use of a controlled substance; a
20
standard condition number five that he work regularly at a
21
lawful occupation, unless excused by Probation Officer for
22
schooling, training or other acceptable reasons; and lastly,
23
standard condition number six that he notify the Probation
24
Officer at least 10 days prior to any change of residence or
25
employment.
Tina
App. 16a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
009
1
The government would present evidence through United
2
States Probation Officer Gregory Coleman, as well as admission
3
documents to show that the defendant violated the terms of his
4
supervised release and that on November 6, the defendant
5
signed an admission form admitting to smoking two blunts
6
containing marijuana on or about November 6, 2024 and violated
7
that same condition previously when he submitted a urine
8
sample on July 31st, 2024, which yielded a positive result for
9
the presence of marijuana.
10
Officer to smoking approximately three joints containing
11
marijuana on or about July 29th, 2024, both being violations
12
of mandatory condition number 1.
13
And he admitted to our Probation
Furthermore, there's a violation of lawful occupation in
14
that he was to maintain employment.
15
Labor Works on July 2nd, 2024 and had not provided the United
16
States Probation Department with any updated employment
17
information since that time, which would be a violation of
18
standard condition number 5.
19
He was last employed by
And lastly, for violation of condition number 6, that on
20
July 31st, 2024, the defendant advised Probation Officer
21
Coleman that he was residing at the Fort Wayne Rescue Mission.
22
However, on the 24th day of September, last year, the Fort
23
Wayne Rescue Mission staff advised Probation Officer Coleman
24
that the defendant was involved in an physical altercation
25
back on May 8th of 2024 and had not been residing there and
Tina
App. 17a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
010
1
would not be eligible for any services until May 8th of 2026.
2
And that's the totality of the evidence the government would
3
submit.
4
THE COURT:
Thank you, Ms. Ashcraft.
5
ATTORNEY TERESA ASHCRAFT:
6
THE COURT:
7
Ashcraft just said?
Mr. Richards, did you hear what Ms.
8
THE DEFENDANT:
9
THE COURT:
10
Thank enough.
Yes, I did.
Do you agree or disagree with what she
said?
11
THE DEFENDANT:
12
THE COURT:
13
THE DEFENDANT:
14
THE COURT:
I agree.
Is it all true and correct?
It is.
I'm reasonably satisfied and find by a
15
preponderance of the evidence that the admitted violations
16
have been proven.
17
judgment that the defendant is guilty of committing the
18
admitted violations of the conditions of his supervision.
19
Therefore, the Clerk is ordered to enter
I further find these Grade B violations combined with the
20
defendant's criminal history category of five produce an
21
advisory guideline sentencing range of 18 to 24 months of
22
imprisonment.
23
Ms. Ashcraft, do you have any argument you wish to present
24
with respect to an appropriate sentence based upon the
25
admitted violations?
Tina
App. 18a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
011
1
ATTORNEY TERESA ASHCRAFT:
2
THE COURT:
3
ATTORNEY TERESA ASHCRAFT:
Yes, Judge, I do.
Go ahead.
It would be a lot easier
4
if Mr. Richards' violations were violations where he's picked
5
up new offenses.
6
Court.
7
I would have a better guidance to give this
These are the types of cases that leave me scratching my
8
head a little bit more, because he is violating probation.
9
His history and looking through his pretrial services report,
10
it's a pattern of behavior that he struggles with the terms of
11
probation or supervised release, and this case is no
12
different.
13
However, I understand and appreciate these aren't the most
14
egregious violations.
15
when you're looking at the 3553 factors of what's appropriate
16
for this defendant in this situation.
17
And so trying to weigh that balance
And I've had a few conversations with Probation Officer
18
Coleman on this.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, I
19
think that's the temperature with him, too, what do we do in
20
this situation.
21
have him serve a term of imprisonment and say we're done with
22
you.
The easy thing would be to cut him loose,
23
But I hesitate to ever make that recommendation,
24
especially on a first violation, because the defendant's
25
homeless, and has a pattern of substance abuse, including in
Tina
App. 19a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
012
1
his past, he has a pattern of substance abuse that uses
2
cocaine.
3
worry that if left to his own devices without a period of
4
supervised release on the back end that we could be back in
5
that same boat.
6
And while we don't have those violations here, I
And when you couple that with homelessness, it's just a
7
matter of time if we cut him loose with just a period of
8
imprisonment that we're not looking at more violations of
9
criminal law.
10
And also, I don't think our Probation Department is ready
11
to give up on him.
12
being under what a lot of people like to call being under
13
papers, I think there's a lot to be said about what our
14
Probation Department can do for someone, including helping him
15
use the skills and trades he's used in the past and get him
16
into gainful employment.
17
get him into gainful employment, get him into substance abuse
18
treatment, and get him stable housing, then he's more likely
19
to be a productive member of society.
20
I know Mr. Richards might be fed up with
Because statistically speaking if we
But I don't know if Mr. Richards wants that.
And so it
21
leaves you scratching your head.
22
a sentence that says it's okay when you just don't want to be
23
under supervision, come in, screw up royally and we'll just be
24
done with you, because I think it sets the wrong message.
25
this was a hefty period of supervised release that
Tina
App. 20a
I don't want to advocate for
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
And
013
1
Mr. Richards was under and he continues to be under until the
2
middle or end of 2028.
3
I think what Probation Officer Coleman is recommending is
4
appropriate.
5
getting him some help in a more controlled setting and then
6
having a shorter term of supervised release on the back end
7
that can hopefully set him up.
8
I think it balances out the temperature of
So I'm in agreement with the recommendation.
I understand
9
that he may come in and advocate for being done, because we're
10
setting him up to fail.
11
to fail is if we don't have a period of supervised release on
12
the back end, then I think the government is absolutely
13
setting him up to fail.
14
history says he uses immediately, he's going to be homeless
15
and he hasn't had employment since last year.
16
see how he would be a productive member of our community,
17
which is ultimately what we like to see.
My counter argument to setting him up
Because he's going to come out,
I just don't
18
So for those reasons and the reasons Officer Coleman has
19
laid out in his summary report of violations, I would asking
20
for 30 years months revoked, with a term of supervised release
21
on the back end, Judge.
22
THE COURT:
Ms. Kraus, what are your thoughts?
23
ATTORNEY MICHELLE KRAUS:
Well, my thoughts are we
24
are absolutely going to set him up to fail if you put him on
25
supervised release, because he doesn't want to be there and
Tina
App. 21a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
014
1
he's not going to follow the rules.
2
now he doesn't want to be in supervised release, and if you
3
give it to him, he's going to break those rules.
4
going to be right back here, everybody is going to be more
5
frustrated because we're trying to help him, come on, Timothy,
6
we're trying to help you.
7
doesn't want it.
8
unemployed are not illegal.
9
And he'll tell you right
So we're
He doesn't want the help.
He
You know, and being homeless and being
There's nothing wrong with him.
It's not way you or I or
10
Mr. Coleman would choose to live our lives, but there's
11
nothing illegal about him choosing to live on the street.
12
has a brother who is in the courtroom today.
13
extended family.
14
we were able to make arrangements for Timothy to view the
15
funeral.
16
Mr. Doolin had the opportunity to speak with some of them.
17
But Tim wants to do what he wants to do.
18
He
He has a pretty
He had a brother who died very recently, and
You know, there were a lot of family members there.
The nature of the violations are pretty de minimal, right?
19
He was smoking some weed.
20
that's legal, but not here yet, not federally, but a matter of
21
time before I think that that happens.
22
I don't know how many states where
You know, does that mean that he's going to lead to -- you
23
know, he's got a history of being a crack addict, he's got a
24
history of using cocaine.
25
He didn't test positive for anything other than marijuana for
Tina
App. 22a
Well, he's also in his 50's now.
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
015
1
the past two years while he was under supervision.
So I don't
2
think we necessarily have to say that the sky is falling,
3
Chicken Little.
4
it's inevitable you're going to break the law.
5
she's arguing.
6
we don't have him on supervised release.
That, you know, you're smoking marijuana,
That's what
It's inevitable he's going to break the law if
He didn't break the law, except smoking marijuana over the
7
8
course of the past two years.
He didn't maintain employment
9
and he didn't maintain housing, but we all feel like life
10
would be easier and better for Mr. Richards if he had those
11
things, but his choice is to be on the street.
12
choice.
And, you know, he has skills.
13
That is his
He's worked on cars his
14
entire life.
He learned at a very young age from his father,
15
from his grandfather, his brother's got an automotive place.
16
He has skills where he can go work and yet, you know, he just
17
kind of floats through life, and does it his way.
And, again, his way is not the way I would choose or the
18
19
way that the majority of people would choose, but being
20
homeless and being unemployed are not illegal.
21
So I think it is an exercise of futility to put him back
22
on supervised release, because he's being honest with all of
23
us.
24
take up a bed that he's going to have for a week when somebody
25
else who probably wants that bed is going to have to wait
I don't want to live in a halfway house.
Tina
App. 23a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
You know, why
Reporter
016
1
2
until he violates that term of supervision.
So rather than have him fail and then he knows that he's
3
got to go back, you know, then at that point you have your
4
second violation, you got to send them back to the BOP, and
5
because he chooses to be homeless.
6
So while it's frustrating to us.
You know, Mr. Coleman is
7
a heck of a caring guy, works hard, tried to make this work
8
out with Timothy, but Tim doesn't want -- he doesn't want the
9
help.
10
to him violating his terms of supervised release.
11
I think sentencing range is 18 to 24 months.
He doesn't want it.
So there has to be a consequence
But the
12
recommendation is for 30.
13
supervision because he smoked marijuana and so that seems to
14
me to be excessive.
15
So it's above that plus some
So I would ask the Court to consider sentencing him to a
16
period of 18 months, the low end of his guideline
17
recommendation.
18
was ready to take responsibility at the last hearing.
19
the one who wanted to move it to try to get some more
20
mitigation on his behalf.
21
some family members and we just didn't hear back, which kind
22
of goes with -- maybe that's why Tim chooses to be what he is,
23
you know, and to float along and do what he wants to do.
24
18 months reflects the seriousness of the reason why we are
25
here, the violation --
Tina
App. 24a
You know, he has taken responsibility.
He
I was
And Mr. Doolin, he reached out to
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
But
017
THE COURT:
1
And with respect to that, you're right,
2
these are not particularly serious violations, but he hasn't
3
satisfied the sentence that Judge Springmann gave him.
4
satisfied his term of imprisonment, but then he had six years
5
of supervised release to serve and he was only on it for about
6
two.
7
he hasn't satisfied.
8
He
So he really has four years of supervised release that
So, you know, that's what I'm struggling with here is to
9
say hey, low end, that's enough here.
10
supervised release?
I mean --
ATTORNEY MICHELLE KRAUS:
11
I -- low end and no
I struggle with that as
12
well, Judge, but I'm also just trying to be pragmatic, right,
13
that if you give him more than that, you know, let's say you
14
give him the 24 months or let's say you go above the
15
guidelines and you give him the 30 months that is recommended
16
in the recommendation and no supervised release, that's
17
certainly punishes him for what he has done, but then what,
18
right?
19
the BOP for 30 months, we're all going to pay for that.
20
do his programming or not -- he probably won't do the
21
programming.
22
he gets out of the Bureau of Prisons.
23
out and hopefully work, if that's what he can do, and then do
24
what he's going to do.
25
So we're going to house him and he's going to sit in
He'll
He has no desire to be in a halfway house when
He just wants to come
And so, you know, how you balance that -- I certainly
Tina
App. 25a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
018
1
understand that, in the big scheme of things, he had the six
2
year sentence to satisfy, he only satisfied two of it.
3
going forward, you know, what are the -- what are the costs
4
and benefits of keeping him in prison for any longer than 18
5
months?
6
however long you want him to sit in prison for.
7
do his time, he'll come out.
8
him on supervised release, just because it's not going to make
9
a difference for him.
10
But in
Clearly his punishment is to sit in prison for
He'll go and
I strongly urge you not to put
And, you know, our efforts and the probation efforts are
11
better spent on somebody who wants that help.
12
I'm not saying he's a bad man.
13
somebody who wants to do life his own way, and the supervision
14
is just -- he's just not going to comply with it is the
15
reality.
16
And, you know,
He's not a bad man.
He's just
And he's not -- you know, you can look at how soft
17
spoken -- he's not snubbing his nose at the Court's authority.
18
He's just resigned as to who he is and what he can expect of
19
himself.
20
Court what you can expect from him in the future.
21
the way he is.
22
And to be honest, he's being very honest with the
It's just
So, you know, whatever amount of time you think is
23
appropriate, he's going to go serve that time.
24
know how much programming he's going to get himself into when
25
he gets there.
Tina
App. 26a
Again, I don't
But when he gets back out, you know, he'll
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
019
1
have some family members to fall back on, if that's what he
2
wants to do.
3
and living on the streets again.
4
he wants to do.
5
that.
But if he's a loaner, he's just going to go back
But there's nothing illegal about him doing
THE COURT:
6
That's because that's what
Thank you, Mrs. Kraus.
I appreciate your
7
honesty.
Officer Coleman, what are your thoughts?
8
why would we use the precious resources of a Probation Officer
9
for somebody who is unwilling to engage with you?
PROBATION OFFICER COLEMAN:
10
I mean,
I think the one thing I
11
look at is from the first -- up until that June -- that first
12
positive drug test, he submitted six negative samples.
13
going to his treatment at the Bowen Center as he was supposed
14
even before he started supervised release.
15
Take Five in Michigan City.
16
and is able to be successful.
17
successful.
18
has it in him to be successful.
He was
He was working at
So all of that shows me he can
It's just he has to want to be
It's not that he's not unable to.
19
THE COURT:
20
PROBATION OFFICER COLEMAN:
And I think he
I mean, he's got a great skill.
And even when he started
21
his supervised release, I mean, he had the goal of getting his
22
ASE automotive certification.
23
navigated FAFSA process all on his own, got approved for
24
financial aid and was taking courses.
25
see people on supervised release do all the time.
Tina
App. 27a
He went out to Ivy Tech,
Those aren't things we
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
So for him
Reporter
020
1
to do those, test negative, it shows me he is able and has the
2
ability to follow the conditions of the Court and live a
3
better life.
4
has periods of time he does want better for himself.
5
He has to want that for himself.
And I think he
And I think unfortunately a lot of people like himself do
6
see that Hey, this is really hard out in the real world.
7
a lot easier for me to go to prison where somebody is telling
8
me what to do every minute of the day, what time to wake up,
9
what time I can eat, when I can go to the bathroom, when I can
10
shower, when I can call home.
11
home to the real world that I struggle and I think that's
12
maybe the position Mr. Richards may be in.
THE COURT:
13
14
15
18
19
Thank you, Mr. or Officer Coleman.
Okay.
podium.
ATTORNEY MICHELLE KRAUS:
You and I can stand up here
now.
(Whereupon, Attorney Kraus and the defendant approach the
podium.)
THE COURT:
20
21
But it's when I have to come
Ms. Kraus, will you and Mr. Richards please approach the
16
17
It's
Mr. Richards, do you wish to make any
statement in mitigation of punishment?
22
THE DEFENDANT:
23
THE COURT:
No.
What are your thoughts?
I mean, Officer
24
Coleman's report kind of goes through and I think Ms. Kraus
25
supports it.
Tina
App. 28a
You kind of decide what you're going to do and
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
021
1
nobody tells you what you're going to do.
2
THE DEFENDANT:
3
THE COURT:
Is that accurate?
Pretty much so.
And so you would rather spend time at the
4
BOP than work with the Probation Officer to see if we can get
5
you on the right track?
6
THE DEFENDANT:
7
THE COURT:
Yes.
Okay.
I appreciate your honesty.
I
8
think that's an unfortunate decision on your part, but having
9
considered the seriousness of the admitted violations, the
10
defendant's personal history and characteristics, the
11
defendant's criminal history and the term of imprisonment and
12
term of supervised release initially imposed by the Court in
13
this case, and given the defendant's stated intention to not
14
comply with the further term of supervised release if the
15
Court were to impose one, and having considered the arguments
16
of the parties and the statements of the Probation Officer and
17
all of the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section
18
3553(a), I find that the defendant's term of supervision
19
should be revoked and a sentence of 36 months of imprisonment
20
shall be imposed to hold the defendant accountable for the
21
violations.
22
The sentence is imposed for the following reasons:
While
23
it is outside the guideline range, the Court nonetheless finds
24
that it provides the defendant with needed correctional
25
treatment in the most effective manner, and also adequately
Tina
App. 29a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
022
1
takes into account the history and characteristics of the
2
defendant.
3
Therefore, it is ordered that the defendant's term of
4
supervision is revoked and the defendant is hereby committed
5
to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a
6
term of 36 months of imprisonment to hold the defendant
7
accountable for the violations.
8
Ms. Kraus, does the defendant have any requests of the
9
Court with respect to recommendations for placement or
10
programming?
ATTORNEY MICHELLE KRAUS:
11
12
to be?
Is there any place you want
Were you up at Milan before?
13
THE DEFENDANT:
14
ATTORNEY MICHELLE KRAUS:
15
THE COURT:
You want to go back?
Yeah.
Okay.
Milan, please.
The Court will recommend that the
16
BOP attempt to designate the defendant to the Milan, Michigan
17
facility to allow friends and family to visit him.
18
The Court will recommend that the defendant be given the
19
opportunity to participate in any -- in the Residential Drug
20
Abuse Program or other programming to address any addiction
21
issues.
22
The defendant will also be recommended for consideration
23
for participation in the recidivism reduction programs
24
implemented by the BOP under the First Step Act.
25
It is ordered that upon release from imprisonment by the
Tina
App. 30a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
023
1
BOP, the defendant shall be discharged from any further term
2
of supervised release.
3
The defendant is -- if the defendant has not done so, he
4
is again ordered to pay all financial objections under the
5
same terms previously imposed and ordered by this Court in its
6
judgment entered on September 5th, 2012.
7
8
Ms. Ashcraft, do you know of any reason why the sentence
should not be imposed as stated?
9
ATTORNEY TERESA ASHCRAFT:
10
THE COURT:
11
Ms. Kraus, do you know of any reason why
the sentence should not be imposed as stated?
12
ATTORNEY MICHELLE KRAUS:
13
THE COURT:
14
15
No, Your Honor.
No, ma'am.
I now order the sentence imposed as
stated?
Mr. Richards, you've now heard the judgment of this Court
16
imposing judgment upon you.
17
Rules of Criminal Procedure, you have a right to appeal your
18
conviction and sentence under certain circumstances,
19
particularly if you think the sentence in this case is somehow
20
contrary to law.
21
Pursuant to Rule 32(J) of the
With few exceptions, any Notice of Appeal must be filed
22
within 14 days of judgment being entered in your case.
23
want to file an appeal and you are unable to pay the cost of
24
an appeal, you may be able to file an appeal at no cost to
25
you.
Tina
App. 31a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
If
024
1
2
If you so request, the Clerk of the Court will prepare and
file a notice of appeal on your behalf.
3
Ms. Kraus, as the defendant's lawyer, I remind you of your
4
duty to perfect a timely appeal of this sentence, should your
5
client wish to do so.
6
responsibilities under Circuit Rule 51.
7
That concludes the proceedings.
8
You're also reminded of your continuing
The defendant is hereby
remanded to the custody of the United States Marshals.
9
ATTORNEY MICHELLE KRAUS:
10
THE CLERK:
All rise.
*
11
Thank you, Judge.
*
*
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Tina
App. 32a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
025
1
2
3
4
CERTIFICATE OF THE REPORTER
5
6
I hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings is true
7
and correct, as taken down and transcribed to the best of my
8
ability, with the aid of realtime computer-aided
9
transcription and/or a transcriptionist.
10
11
s/ Tina M. Gallucci_____________
Tina M. Gallucci, RMR, CRR, FCRR
United States District Court Reporter
12
13
14
15
16
Certificate applies only to Original Transcript hereof,
and does not apply to any copies of this, whether Xerox or
computerized.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Tina
App. 33a
Gallucci, Federal Certified Realtime
Tina_Gallucci@innd.uscourt.gov
(260)423-3060
Reporter
USDC IN/ND case 1:10-cr-00006-HAB-SLC
document 303
filed 02/11/25
page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY LEE RICHARDS
Defendant.
CASE NUMBER: 1:10CR6-001
USM Number: 10460-027
MICHELLE F KRAUS - FCD
DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY
JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE
(For Revocation of Probation or Supervised Release)
THE DEFENDANT admitted guilt to Violation No. 1 of Mandatory Condition No.1 (New
Allegation), Violation No. 1 of Mandatory Condition No. 1 (Previous Allegation), Violation No. 1 of
Standard Condition No. 5 (Previous Allegation) and Violation No. 1 of Standard Condition No. 6
(Previous Allegation) of the term of supervision.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court has adjudicated that the Defendant is guilty of the following offense:
Violation Number
Mandatory
Condition No. 1
(New Allegation)
Violation No. 1
Mandatory
Condition No. 1
(Previous
Allegation)
Violation No. 1
Standard
Condition No. 5
(Previous
Allegation)
Violation No. 1
App. 34a
Nature of Violation
The Defendant signed an admission form
admitting to smoking two blunts, containing
marijuana.
Date Violation
Concluded
On or About
November 6, 2024
On July 31, 2024, this officer collected a urine
sample from the Defendant, which yielded a
positive result for the presence of marijuana. The
Defendant admitted to smoking approximately
three joints, containing marijuana.
On or About
July 29, 2024
The Defendant has failed to maintain lawful
employment. The Defendant was last employed
by LaborWorks and has not provided any
updated employment information.
July 2, 2024
APPENDIX D
USDC IN/ND case 1:10-cr-00006-HAB-SLC
document 303
Defendant: TIMOTHY LEE RICHARDS
Case Number: 1:10CR6-001
Standard
Condition No. 6
(Previous
Allegation)
Violation No. 1
filed 02/11/25
The Defendant advised he was residing at the
Fort Wayne Rescue Mission. On September 24,
2024, Fort Wayne Rescue Mission staff advised
the Defendant was involved in a physical
altercation with another resident on May 8, 2024,
and is ineligible for all services until May 8, 2026.
The Defendant has failed to notify this officer of
a change in his residence
page 2 of 4
Page 2 of 4
July 31, 2024
The Defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 3 through 4 of this Judgment. The sentence is
imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.
The Court ORDERS the Defendant’s current term of supervision REVOKED.
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant must notify the United States Attorney for this District within
30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs and
special assessments imposed by this Judgment are fully paid. If ordered to pay restitution, the
Defendant must notify the Court and United States Attorney of any material change in economic
circumstances.
February 11, 2025
Date of Imposition of Judgment
s/ Holly A. Brady
Signature of Judge
Holly A. Brady, Chief Judge, U. S. District Court
Name and Title of Judge
February 11, 2025
Date
2
App. 35a
USDC IN/ND case 1:10-cr-00006-HAB-SLC
document 303
Defendant: TIMOTHY LEE RICHARDS
Case Number: 1:10CR6-001
filed 02/11/25
page 3 of 4
Page 3 of 4
IMPRISONMENT
The Defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be
imprisoned for a term of 36 MONTHS.
The Court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:
1. That the Defendant serve his term of imprisonment at the federal facility in Milan, Michigan
to facilitate visitation with family and friends.
2. That the Defendant participate in the Residential Drug Assistance Program (RDAP) or
another available program to address his substance abuse issues.
3. That the Defendant be considered for enrollment in any Evidence Based Recidivism
Reduction Programs or other programs implemented by the BOP to allow the Defendant
to earn early release credits under the First Step Act.
4. That the Defendant participate in residential re-entry programs specific to his needs, as
available under the First Step Act.
5. That the Defendant be assessed for participation in the Evidence Based Recidivisim
Reduction Program (pursuant to the First Step Act) as well as any recidivism programs
developed or to be developed under 34 U.S.C. § 605.
The Defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.
RETURN
I have executed this Judgment as follows:
Defendant delivered ____________________ to ______________ at ______________,
with a certified copy of this Judgment.
_____________________________
UNITED STATES MARSHAL
By: _____________________________
DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHAL
3
App. 36a
USDC IN/ND case 1:10-cr-00006-HAB-SLC
document 303
Defendant: TIMOTHY LEE RICHARDS
Case Number: 1:10CR6-001
filed 02/11/25
page 4 of 4
Page 4 of 4
SUPERVISED RELEASE
No new term of supervised is imposed.
CRIMINAL MONETARY PENALTIES
The Court ORDERS the Defendant to pay all financial obligations, including the balance of the
restitution ordered, and to do so under the same terms previously imposed and ordered by the
Court in its original judgment entered on December 5, 2012. Defendant shall receive credit for all
payments made to date.
4
App. 37a
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.