Court filing

Report and Recommendation — United States v. Kasali (Dkt. 464, S.D. Tex.)

Summary

Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo's report and recommendation entered April 23, 2026 in United States v. Lola Kasali, No. 4:21-CR-54, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. It addresses the Probation Office's petitions and supplements on supervised release dated October 28, 2025, December 9, 2025 and December 11, 2025, which Judge Sim Lake referred on December 1, 2025. The report recounts that Kasali failed to appear for the December 12, 2025 hearing, that a warrant issued, and that the Faretta and supervised release hearings were held on March 3, 4, and 9, 2026. It notes that on April 7, 2022 Kasali was sentenced to 70 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Filed April 23, 2026 in Lola Shalewa Barbara Kasali; one of 4 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Filed	2026-04-23

Cite this document

“Report and Recommendation — United States v. Kasali (Dkt. 464, S.D. Tex.).” U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, No. 4:21-cr-00054, Doc. 464, filed 2026-04-23. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/lola-kasali-v-united-states-of-america/2026-04-23-report-and-recommendation-dkt-464/, SHA-256 81c4a5b8d54d7836401cc655f3dd773254ccf75a0aa61656e636fd0be5b50209.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 22
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
April 23, 2026
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

United States of America §
§
v. § NO. 4:21-CR-54
§
Lola Kasali §
§

JUDGE PALERMO’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court are the U.S. Probation Office’s Petitions for Warrant

or Summons for Offender Under Supervision and Supplement to the Petition for

Warrant or Summons for Person Under Supervision dated October 28, 2025,

December 9, 2025, and December 11, 2025. ECF Nos. 396, 413, and 414.1 On

December 12, 2025, before she was represented by counsel, Defendant Lola Kasali

filed a response to the petition styled as a motion. ECF No. 417.2 The Court set the

final hearing on the supervised release violation (“SRV”) for December 12, 2025,

at 2:00 p.m. Notice of Setting, ECF No. 412. Defendant failed to appear and the

Court issued a warrant for her arrest. Arrest Warrant, ECF No. 422. The final SRV

hearing was then reset for February 11, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. At that hearing, appointed

1
On December 1, 2025, Judge Sim Lake referred the Petition and all pending motions to Judge
Dena Palermo. Order of Referral, ECF No. 411.
2
On January 16, 2026, the Court appointed counsel for Defendant. Order Appointing Counsel,
ECF No. 425.
1

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 22

counsel asked the Court to set a Faretta hearing on Defendant’s motion to relieve her

attorney, ECF No. 439. The Faretta and SRV hearings were set for March 3, 2026

and were held on March 3, 4, and 9, 2026. The Government was represented by

Assistant United States Attorney Belinda Beek. Defendant was represented by

Assistant Federal Public Defender Alex Rosa-Ambert.

I. BACKGROUND

To unlawfully enrich herself and obtain money from the Small Business

Administration (“SBA”), Defendant submitted two materially false and fraudulent

Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”)3 loan applications in the amounts of

$1,937,500 and $1,875,944, on behalf of two entities she purportedly owned to two

federally insured financial institutions. ECF No. 27 at 3, 4. In addition to other false

and misleading statements made in seeking the PPP loans, Defendant misrepresented

the number of employees and payroll expenses the businesses had. Id. at 3.

On December 8, 2021, a jury found Defendant guilty of making false

statements to a financial institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (two counts),

and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (two counts). ECF Nos. 27; 174.

On April 7, 2022, the Defendant was sentenced to a term of 70 months’

imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, in addition to five years of

3
The PPP was part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act
designed to provided emergency financial assistance to Americans who suffered negative
economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. ECF No. 27 at 1–2.
2

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 22

supervised release term (“SRT”) on each count, also to run concurrently. Judgment,

ECF No. 234. In addition, the Court imposed conditions, including restitution of

$2,027,686.64, a special assessment of $400, and special conditions that included a

mental health evaluation and treatment, and a prohibition on incurring any new

credit charges or lines of credit without advance approval of the probation officer.

Judgment, ECF No. 234. On January 18, 2024, the Court reduced the Defendant’s

sentence to 57 months’ imprisonment on each count pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). Order, ECF No. 371. On August 2, 2024, mandate issued on the Fifth

Circuit’s judgment affirming the District Court. Order of United States Court of

Appeals, ECF No. 376.

Defendant was released from the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) on January 4,

2025—over two years before the end of her 57-month sentence. ECF No. 409-1 at 3.

On January 7, 2025, Defendant began her five years of supervised release. ECF

No. 396 at 1. On October 28, 2025, Defendant’s Probation Officer filed a Petition

for Warrant or Summons alleging: failure to pay restitution; failure to follow

probation officer’s instructions; failure to participate in mental health treatment;

failure to permit probation officer to visit you at home or elsewhere. ECF No. 396.4

4
Shortly after Probation filed its first Petition outlining Defendant’s supervised release violations,
Defendant filed a motion to modify or reduce the SRT stating, among other things, that she had
shown she was rehabilitated and further supervision would serve no purpose. ECF No. 397. The
Court recommended denying the motion, finding that it was prematurely filed under the statue, she
had not over-served her sentence as asserted, and she had not shown rehabilitation as claimed
3

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 22

Summons issued and the Court set an initial appearance and counsel determination

hearing for November 17, 2025. See ECF No. 407. On November 17, 2025, a few

minutes prior to the scheduled hearing, Defendant contacted the Court via phone,

claiming she was having car issues, which would prevent her from appearing.

Therefore, the Court reset the hearing for the next day, November 18, 2025. ECF

Nos. 399, 413, 414. On November 18, 2025, Plaintiff appeared without counsel and

indicated she would retain her own counsel, Minute Entry, Nov. 18, 2025. The Court

set this matter for a final revocation hearing on December 12, 2025. Order, ECF

No. 405.5 Defendant was released on the same supervised release conditions.

After the initial appearance hearing, on December 9, 2025, Defendant’s

Probation Officer filed a Superseding Petion for Warrant or Summons for Person

Under Supervision to update the alleged violations and recommendation. ECF

No. 413. Probation listed the alleged violations as: failure to pay restitution; failure

to follow probation officer’s instructions; failure to participate in mental health

treatment; failure to permit probation officer to visit her at home or elsewhere; and

failure to pay special assessment. ECF No. 413. Probation recommended the term of

supervision be revoked. ECF No. 413.

considering the Petition on file showing violations of her supervised release. R&R, ECF No. 410.
Judge Lake adopted the R&R. Order, ECF No. 420.
5
The SRV hearing was set before Judge Lake. Id. Subsequently, Judge Lake referred the hearing
and all pending motions to Judge Palermo. Order, ECF No. 411. Judge Palermo reset the SRV
hearing for the same time, December 12, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Notice of Setting, ECF No. 412.
4

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 22

On December 11, 2025, Probation filed a Second Superseding Petition,

alleging additional violations, ECF No. 414, including incurring new credit charges

and opening additional lines of credit without approval. Id. Again, Probation

recommended the term of supervision be revoked. Id.

On December 12, 2025, Defendant filed an unverified two-day work excuse

dated December 12, 2025, on HCA Houston Healthcare letterhead, ECF No. 415,

and failed to appear at the final SRV hearing. The Court issued a warrant for

Defendant’s arrest and set Defendant for an initial appearance on the Superseding

Petition for January 15, 2026. ECF Nos. 422, 423, 424. On December 12, 2025,

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and response to the Petition. ECF No. 417. Three

days later, on December 15, 2026, Defendant filed a motion to quash the warrant,

claiming that she had a “medical emergency requiring hospitalization, rendering her

physically unable to appear before the Court. ECF No. 419 ¶ 2. Plaintiff filed a

supporting declaration, making the same statement “under penalty of perjury.” ECF

No. 419-1 at 1-2. The declaration attached the same work excuse. Id. at3.

Defendant was arrested on January 14, 2026. ECF No. 424. She appeared at

the initial appearance hearing without counsel even though she had told the Court

on November 18, 2025 that she intended to retain counsel, Minute Entry, Nov. 18,

2025. She asked for additional time to retain counsel. Minute Entry, Jan. 15, 2026.

The Court set the final supervised release violation for hearing on February 11, 2026,

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 22

at 2:00 p.m. Order, ECF No. 426. Defendant was ordered to remain in detention

pending the final revocation hearing. Order, ECF No. 427. Because Defendant has

not retained counsel since November while she was on release, two days after the

initial appearance, the Court appointed the Federal Public Defender as defense

counsel for Defendant. Order, ECF No. 425.

At the scheduled final revocation hearing on February 11, 2026, Defendant

advised the Court that she wanted to represent herself. Her court appointed attorney

requested a Faretta hearing. Minute Entry, Feb. 11, 2026. Consequently, the Court

reset the SRV hearing for a Faretta hearing and SRV hearing on March 3, 2026. Id.

On February 20, 2026, Defendant filed a motion to relieve her counsel. ECF

No. 439. At the March 3, 2026 Faretta hearing,6 the Court sought to undertake the

requisite questioning of Defendant to determine whether she may proceed with self-

representation but was unable to because of Defendant’s barrage of objections and

interjections into the proceeding. 7 On March 4, 2026, after taking the motion under

6
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
7
The Court ruled on the record, on March 4, 2026, denying Defendant’s motion to represent herself
based on her obstructionist behavior during the Faretta hearing on March 3, 2026, refusing to
answer the Court’s questions and repeatedly stating that she did not waive her right to a probable
cause hearing on the arrest warrant. Despite the Court’s explanation that Defendant’s request for
a probable cause hearing on the arrest warrant was moot because the Court and counsel were there
to proceed on the SRV hearing, Defendant used up the hour set aside for the Faretta hearing with
her objections and other statements, obstructing the Court’s ability to conduct the hearing. Lewis
v. Davis, No. CV 4:18-1049, 2019 WL 330460, at *7 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2019) (quoting Faretta,
422 U.S. at 834 n. 46) (recognizing that a defendant’s right to represent herself can be denied when
she obstructs the court’s proceedings, and is not a license to abuse the dignity of the courtroom or
fail to comply with the rules of procedure and substantive law).

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 22

advisement, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to represent herself and proceeded

with the SRV hearing.

II. PETITIONS

The PO filed the petitions alleging seven violations:

(1) Failure to pay restitution as directed (Grade C violation);

(2) Failure to follow U.S. Probation Officer’s instructions (Grade C
violation);
(3) Failure to participate in mental health treatment (Grade C violation);

(4) Failure to permit a U.S. Probation Officer to visit at home or elsewhere
(Grade C violation);
(5) Failure to pay special assessment fee as directed (Grade C violation);

(6) Incurring new credit charges without approval of the Probation Officer
(Grade C violation); and
(7) Incurring or opening additional lines of credit without approval of the
Probation Officer (Grade C violation).
ECF Nos. 396, 413, and 414.

With respect to the first violation—failure to pay restitution, the Petition

alleges that on April 7, 2022, Defendant was ordered to pay restitution in the

amount of $2,027,688.64 in installments of $300 per month to commence 60 days

after release from prison. Defendant has not made any payments from March 2025

through October 2025. On July 28, 2025, Defendant received a credit of

$1,937,500.00 from seized funds. Despite her PO’s instructions to pay the

remaining balance, Defendant refused to comply. ECF No. 414 at 2 ¶ 1.

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 22

Regarding the second violation—failure to follow Probation Officer’s

instructions, the Petition alleges that Defendant claims to suffer from nerve damage

and is wheelchair bound and unable to walk or stand, preventing her from obtaining

full-time employment.8 She has been instructed to provide documentation

supporting her medical condition and restrictions but has failed to do so. Id. ¶ 2.

Third, as to her failure to participate in mental health treatment, the Petition

alleges that Defendant is court ordered to participate in mental health treatment.

She eventually agreed to complete the assessments but was uncooperative during

the evaluation and refused to answer questions, impeding the provider’s ability to

make a full mental health assessment. Id. at 2-3 ¶ 3.

In the fourth violation, the Petition charges that Defendant has failed to

permit the Probation Officer to visit her at home or elsewhere. 9 Defendant has

8
The Court notes that this issue has been recurring throughout her pretrial and posttrial history.
As the Court summarized in the Order revoking her bond, ECF No. 56, Defendant claimed she
was paralyzed from the waist down, requiring her to use a wheelchair. When she was arrested for
her pretrial release violations, the arresting Deputy Marshal saw Defendant drive a car to her
mother’s house, exit the car, and walk into the house, establishing that she did not need a
wheelchair and was not paralyzed. When he went to the mother’s front door and entered the house,
Defendant was sprawled on the floor of a back bedroom and claimed she could not walk, forcing
the officers to carry her out. When the officer accidentally stepped on her toe, Defendant screamed,
“Ouch,” establishing again that she was not paralyzed. Id. at 4. During this exchange, Defendant’s
mother repeatedly told her to stop pretending and to walk out of the house. Id.
9
The Court again notes that Defendant made it difficult for Probation to supervise her during her
pretrial release. Among other things, she changed phone numbers several times and refused to
answer the phone when her officer called her. When she did answer, she was belligerent and
uncooperative. Ultimately, her mother had to act as the intermediary between Probation and
Defendant. Order, ECF No. 56 at 3-4. In addition, she repeatedly refused to come to the Probation
office for inspection of her GPS monitor, claiming she or someone in her family had COVID, but
she refused to provide proof of her infection. Id. at 2-3. She refused to check in as required and
8

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 22

refused to comply with unscheduled home visits. Of seven unscheduled visits, only

one was successful. On the last attempted home visit, someone responded to the

door but, after the Probation Officer identified herself, the woman refused to open

the door. Defendant refused to have face-to-face meetings and would call her

Probation Officer on the phone or send an email to check in. Id. at 3 ¶ 4.

On April 7, 2022, the Court ordered Defendant to pay a $400.00 special

assessment fee. At the time the Petition was filed, Defendant owed $140.00, failing

to pay in March through October 2025. In November, after she was aware of the

Petition, Defendant made a $10.00 payment. Id. at 3 ¶ 5.

Finally, as to the sixth and seventh violations, the Court prohibited Defendant

from incurring new credit charges or opening additional lines of credit without the

approval of her Probation Officer. In December 2025, the probation office

conducted a credit check and discovered that Defendant had obtained a credit card

from Synchrony Bank – Amazon with a credit limit of $150.00. She did not have

permission to open this account. Id. at 3 ¶ 6. In addition, probation discovered that

Defendant had obtained at least eight student loans from the Department of

Education, totaling $19,048.00. She did not have permission to obtain these loans.

She never informed her Probation Officer that she was a student. Id. at 3-4 ¶ 7.

refused to have her GPS monitor inspected as required, violating the conditions of her release. Id.
at 3.
9

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 22

The Probation Officer asked that Defendant’s supervised release be revoked

because she was unable to effectively carry out her supervisory responsibilities. Id.

at 4.

III. THE FINAL REVOCATION HEARING.

At the revocation hearing, held on March 4 and 9, 2026, Defendant did not

plead true to the charges. The Government called two witnesses to support the

charges: U.S. Probation Officer Azuree Jackson (“PO”) and U.S. Postal Inspector

Kyle Shadowence (“PI”). At the hearing, the Government stated that the fifth claim

of failure to pay the special assessment was now moot because Defendant paid the

money owed. The other charges remained.

A. Testimony of Defendant’s Probation Officer Supports the Charges.
PO testified that she was assigned to supervise Defendant since January 2025.

She first met Defendant on January 9, 2025, during a home visit. After that, on

January 14, 2025, Defendant reported to the Probation office for an intake

appointment, to review the conditions of her release. She received and signed a copy

of the agreement with Probation. She signed the conditions of release, which

contained five mandatory conditions, four special conditions, and fifteen standard

conditions. Defendant represented that she understood the conditions and would

abide by them.

As to the first violation, the restitution order was part of the judgment. She

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 11 of 22

was ordered to pay $2,027,686.64. After a credit of $1,937,500.00 from funds that

were seized, Defendant owed a balance of $90,186.64. The first payment was due

60 days after her release from prison. She should have paid $300.00 per month. She

missed the first payment and made no monthly payments. PO spoke to Defendant

about her failure to pay during office and home visits. Defendant repeatedly said that

she did not owe the money. She therefore said she would not make any payments.

PO’s Supervisor offered Defendant a payment reduction plan as an accommodation

to her financial situation. Defendant was not interested in a reduced payment plan.

PO testified that she repeatedly raised the payment of restitution with Defendant

during their in-person visits at home and in the Probation office.

Regarding the second violation—failure to follow instructions, employment

is a condition of supervised release. Defendant said that she was employed,

answering phones at her mother’s hair braiding business. PO testified that this

employment was not suitable because it was less than 30 hours per week and did not

pay minimum wage. In addition, Defendant was paid in cash and failed to document

her income, although her mother wrote a letter stating that Defendant worked for

her. In addition, Defendant claims that she could not work because she was

wheelchair bound. She claimed to suffer from nerve damage and could not walk. PO

asked for medical documentation to support her medical limitation. Defendant never

provided supporting documents. PO testified that she repeatedly asked for the

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 12 of 22

supporting medical documents. On cross-examination, PO testified that Defendant

said that she was assaulted in Dubai and was treated in Dubai. She said she did not

have records because they were in Dubai.

The third violation—failure to participate in mental health treatment stems

from Judge Lake’s order. PO testified that Defendant did go to the mental health

appointments but did not participate sufficiently for the therapists to be able to fully

assess her. On cross-examination, PO testified that Defendant went to two separate

mental health service providers. She reported for the appointment, but she did not

participate. The providers said she refused to answer questions and they were unable

to make a full evaluation. The second assessment on March 5, 2025, makes a

recommendation to complete a psychiatric treatment assessment and to see if she

needs counseling.

The fourth violation charges that Defendant failed to permit the PO to visit at

home or elsewhere. PO testified that a routine part of supervision includes

unannounced home visits to see if the person under supervision has reintegrated into

the community and is in compliance with the terms of release. In most cases,

unannounced visits are successful. They are conducted in the early morning, before

8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. or on weekends. Contrary to this usual practice,

Defendant would not allow PO to make the unannounced visits. She insisted that the

visits needed to be scheduled or announced in advance. She claimed that having the

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 13 of 22

PO pop up at her home was rude. She said instead she could report to the Probation

office or have a scheduled home visit.

PO further testified to the history of visits with Defendant:

x Defendant was released from BOP in early January 2025. Defendant

did not call the Probation office to notify them that she had been

released as she was required to do.

x PO attempted a home visit on January 9, 2025. That visit was

successful. PO was able to see Defendant and gave her reporting

instructions.

x On April 29, 2025, the PO made an unannounced visit. Defendant and

her mom confronted PO, complaining that she showed up too early and

unannounced. The mom was upset and made comments to PO about

her skin color and other personal comments. PO testified she was not

able to enter the Defendant’s house. But Defendant answered all of

PO’s questions.

x On May 2 and May 25, PO made unannounced visits to Defendant’s

home. No one answered the door.

x After the series of unsuccessful visits, PO scheduled the next visit for

June 25, 2025. PO and her Supervisor arrived at Defendant’s house at

the scheduled time. They saw Defendant and her mom in a vehicle.

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 14 of 22

Defendant told PO she had to leave and would not let PO and her

Supervisor in the house. At that point, Defendant had been on release

for more than 6 months and PO needed to complete a home inspection.

The visit was unsuccessful.

x On July 19, 2025, PO successfully attempted another announced visit.

At that time, she was able to inspect the house and complete the home

visit.

x On August 25, 30, and September 5, 2025, PO attempted home visits.

These visits were all unsuccessful because no one answered the door.

x PO scheduled an announced visit for September 19, 2025 because there

were so many unsuccessful unannounced visits. This visit, even though

scheduled, was not successful. Defendant answered her phone and told

the PO that she had left the house and was not there.

x On September 24, 2025 PO attempted another unannounced visit.

When she approached the door and rang the bell, someone inside asked,

“Who is it?” PO identified herself. Then no one answered again or

opened the door although there was someone inside the house.

The sixth and seventh violations involve new charges and new lines of credit.

The Judgment states that Defendant cannot open any new credit or lines of credit as

a special condition of her release. In early December 2025, PO conducted a credit

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 15 of 22

check. On the credit report, PO observed a new credit card and student loans.

Defendant never asked for permission to open a credit card or to obtain any new

loans. Before the Second Superseding Petition was filed, Defendant had never

informed her PO that she was a full-time student. PO testified that if she had known

that Defendant was a student, the employment requirement would have been waived.

After the Second Superseding Petition was filed, Defendant submitted a statement

to her PO that she is in school but did not provide any supporting documentation.

PO had not been able to verify whether Defendant was in fact a student at the

University of Houston as claimed.

The Court finds that the PO is a credible witness. Her testimony supports the

charges that Defendant failed to pay restitution, failed to follow her PO’s

instructions, failed to participate in mental health evaluations and treatments, failed

to allow for home visits, and obtained new credit and loans without the approval of

her PO. The Court is aware of Defendant’s history of non-compliant behavior both

before conviction and after. Defendant has refused to cooperate with her PO and has

attempted to dictate the terms of her supervision, including where and when she

would meet with her PO, whether she would pay restitution, and whether she would

follow any other instructions or Court orders.

B. Testimony of Postal Inspector Negates Defendant’s Excuse.

The Government called PI to testify about Defendant’s failure to appear in

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 16 of 22

court on December 12, 2025. Defendant represented to the Court in myriad filings

in this case and the habeas case that the reason she missed the supervised release

violation hearing set for December 12, 2025 was that she had a medical emergency

and was hospitalized. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 419, 419-1. Defendant presented the Court

with a note purporting to be a doctor’s excuse, justifying her failure to appear and

establishing that she was hospitalized. ECF No. 415, 419-1 at 3.

PI investigated whether Defendant’s claim of a medical emergency

warranting hospitalization was true. He testified that it was not true. PI obtained the

records from the emergency room depicted in the excuse note. HCA Houston

Healthcare-West is a freestanding facility on Highway 6. It is an emergency room

not located on a hospital campus. PI confirmed that Defendant was at that emergency

room on December 12, 2025 at 2:30 a.m. until 4:30 a.m. She complained of chest

pain. The doctor provided a prescription for anti-inflammatory medicine with no

restrictions. The work excuse provided to the Court is a standard form that is

included in every discharge package for all patients. PI testified if a patient was

unable to appear in court, the facility would provide a more specialized note specific

to the individual regarding the condition treated. PI testified that Defendant had an

X-ray, and EKG. She had no significant findings to warrant treatment or admission

to the hospital. Likewise, she had no condition that prevented her from coming to

court. PI further testified that it was not true that Defendant was hospitalized that

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 17 of 22

day to prevent her from coming to court.

On cross-examination, PI testified that he met with the treating physician to

confirm the information and obtained the medical records. He confirmed that the

emergency room where Defendant was examined was not attached to a hospital,

Defendant was not admitted to a hospital, Defendant was not hospitalized on

December 12, 2025.

The Court finds PI’s testimony is credible. He established that Defendant’s

claimed hospitalization as the reason she missed the SRV hearing set for December

12, 2025 was untrue. The Court finds that Defendant’s statements in Court and in

her filings to justify her actions are not credible.

IV. ANALYSIS: THE RECORD SUPPORTS REVOKING DEFENDANT’S
SUPERVISED RELEASE AND SENTENCING HER TO ADDITION
PRISON TIME.

Based on the testimony offered, a preponderance of the evidence establishes

that there is a factual basis for revocation on violations 1through 4 and 6 through 7.

The record is replete with evidence that Defendant has refused to allow her

PO to supervise her. “Supervised release can only be successful with honesty and

cooperation on the part of the Defendant, building trust between the person

supervised and the supervisor. Failure to cooperate makes supervision impossible.”

United States v. Kasali, No. 4:21-CR-54, 2025 WL 3755900, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Dec.

1, 2025), adopted, No. CR H–21-54, 2025 WL 3755607 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2025).

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 18 of 22

See also United States v. Latham, No. 01-CR-40047-SMY, 2026 WL 205584, at *1

(S.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2026) (denying early termination of supervised release in part

because of defendant’s “refusal to cooperate with his probation officer”).

Defendant refused to pay restitution as ordered. Defendant refused to follow

instructions about employment and her claimed disability that prevented her from

working. Now, Defendant claims that she has been a full-time student, and that is

what prevented her from working full-time. She failed to provide this information to

her PO. Defendant refused to cooperate when her PO made unannounced home

visits. Finally, Defendant violated her SRT when she opened new credit and loans

without permission. United States v. Bates, No. 6:20-CR-00058-JDK, 2025 WL

1794362, at *3 (E.D. Tex. June 26, 2025) (concluding defendant’s supervised release

should be revoked because “he refused to complete the initial intake documentation

as instructed by the probation officer”), adopted, No. 6:20-CR-00058-JDK, 2025

WL 1791158 (E.D. Tex. June 27, 2025). While she did report to the mental health

evaluation appointments, Defendant failed to fully participate to enable the providers

to assess her and make recommendations.

This is sufficient to revoke her supervised release. United States v. Dulin, No.

4:07-CR-173-ALM, 2021 WL 841404, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2021)

(recommending defendant’s supervised release be revoked because he “failed to

report and participate in Mental Health Treatment as directed”). See also United

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 19 of 22

States v. Johnson, No. 24-10194, 2025 WL 32820, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2025)

(affirming revocation sentence where defendant, among other things, “refus[ed] to

participate in residential substance abuse treatment services”), cert. denied, 145 S.

Ct. 2690 (2025); United States v. Bolden, No. 22-40839, 2023 WL 4540478, at *3

(5th Cir. July 14, 2023) (affirming revocation of supervised release in part because

defendant “fail[ed] to participate in drug and alcohol treatment, as directed, by

failing to submit to drug tests” and “fail[ed] to participate in mental health treatment,

as directed”); United States v. Pete, No. 1:05-CR-49, 2010 WL 5139846, at *2 (E.D.

Tex. Dec. 9, 2010) (finding “defendant violated a special condition of his supervised

release by failing to cooperate and participate in a program of testing and treatment

for drug abuse”).

For a Grade C violation the guideline range is between three and nine months

of imprisonment. U.S.S.G. § 7C1.5. The maximum term of imprisonment allowed

under the statute is 3 years for false statement in counts 1&2 (Class B felony) and

bank fraud in counts 3&4 (Class B felony).10 See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (the court

may revoke a term of supervised release and require defendant to serve in prison all

or part of the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense up to 3

years for a class B felony).

10
An offense is classified as a Class B felony if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is twenty-five years
or more. 18 U.S.C. § 3559. All counts provide for up to 30 years in prison, making the false statement and bank
fraud counts Class B felonies. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014, 1344.

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 20 of 22

In crafting the appropriate revocation sentence, a court may impose (1) a

sentence within the guidelines range, (2) “an upward or downward departure as

allowed by the Guidelines,” and (3) “a non-Guideline sentence or a variance that is

outside of the relevant Guidelines range.” United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347,

349 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A court may

impose any sentence that falls within the statutory maximum term of imprisonment

allowed for the revocation sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), and a court must

consider the permissible factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), along with the

nonbinding policy statements found in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines.

United States v. Walker, 742 F.3d 614, 616 (5th Cir. 2014). The permissible § 3553

factors include: the defendant’s criminal history and characteristics; the need for

adequate deterrence; the need for protection of the public; the need for effective care,

training, or treatment; the kinds of sentence and sentencing range established for the

defendant’s applicable category of offense; the pertinent Sentencing Commission

policy statements; the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and the need

to provide restitution to any victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The Court is

considering only the allowable § 3553 factors, and to the extend the Court has looked

at the seriousness of the allegation/s, it has done so not as a primary consideration,

but a secondary one. See United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012, 1016–17 (5th Cir.

2015). The primary sentencing goal upon revocation of supervised release is to

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 21 of 22

sanction the defendant for failing to abide by the terms of the supervision. See

U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. A, intro. comment ¶ 3(b); United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841,

843 (5th Cir. 2011).

Here, the U.S. Probation Office recommended a sentence of three years

imprisonment, with no term of supervised release following release. Defendant has

been in custody since January 14, 2026. The Government agreed with Probation’s

recommendation.

Counsel for Defendant opposed the recommended sentence and requested the

Court to allow Defendant to remain on release but to assign her to a different PO and

require her to obtain mental health treatment.

The Court advised counsel and Defendant that the recommendation would be

that Defendant’s TSR be revoked, and that she be sentenced to the maximum term

of imprisonment, to be served concurrently for all violations, with credit for time

served in federal custody,11 and no supervised release upon her release from prison.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Court find that Defendant committed Violations One, Two, Three, Four,

Six, and Seven, thereby violating her term of supervised release. ECF Nos. 396,

11 “A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has

spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences. . . that has not been credited
against another sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). Furthermore, the Advisory Guidelines recommend
that the term of imprisonment shall be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the
Defendant is currently serving, whether or not the sentence of imprisonment being served resulted
from the conduct that is the basis of the revocation of supervised release. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 464 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 22 of 22

413, 414. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s term of supervised

release be REVOKED. It is further RECOMMENDED that Defendant be

sentenced to three years of imprisonment, to be served concurrently for all

violations, with credit for time served in federal custody, with no supervised release

following her release from prison.

The Parties have fourteen days from service of this Report and

Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R.

Crim. P. 59(b). Failure to file timely objections waives the party’s right to

review. will preclude review. Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2).

Signed, at Houston, Texas, on April 22, 2026.

______________________________
Dena Hanovice Palermo
United States Magistrate Judge

File and source

File: 464.pdf
Size: 279,931 bytes
SHA-256: 81c4a5b8d54d7836401cc655f3dd773254ccf75a0aa61656e636fd0be5b50209
Our copy: 464.pdf