Supplement to the Record — United States v. Dantzler (Dkt. 84, M.D. Ala.)

Summary

A supplement to the record by United States District Judge Myron H. Thompson in United States v. Tametria Conner Dantzler, Criminal Action No. 2:24cr305-MHT, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division, filed June 6, 2025 as Document 84. By agreement of the parties (Doc. 83), the court adds reasoning omitted from its sentencing opinion, as discussed at a status conference on May 28, 2025. It explains that in setting the conditions of supervised release it considered a year of home confinement in addition to a year of weekends in jail, but decided that adding home confinement would place too great a burden on the U.S. Probation Office.

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

Record facts

Full text

Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD   Document 84    Filed 06/06/25   Page 1 of 2



  IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

     MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA          )
                                  )          CRIMINAL ACTION NO.
     v.                           )             2:24cr305-MHT
                                  )                  (WO)
TAMETRIA CONNER DANTZLER          )

                   SUPPLEMENT TO THE RECORD

    By agreement of the parties, see Joint Response to

Court Order (Doc. 83), the court supplements the record

as follows.     As explained during the status conference

on May 28, 2025, the court omitted from its sentencing

opinion and oral explanation of the sentence a part of

the reasoning it used in deciding upon the sentence

imposed.   In deciding the sentence, and specifically in

determining the conditions of supervised release, the

court considered the capabilities of the U.S. Probation

Office and the amount of work it would place on it.

More specifically, the court considered imposing a year

of home confinement in addition to a year of weekends

in jail.    However, the court decided that adding home

confinement in addition to weekends in jail would place

  Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD      Document 84         Filed 06/06/25    Page 2 of 2




too great a burden on the Probation Office, which would

be required to meet with the defendant at the start of

each     weekend     to   remove      the         electronic            monitoring

equipment from the defendant and then would have to

meet    with   her   again     at    the    end        of    each      weekend        to

reinstall      the   equipment.            In    an      earlier        case,     the

Probation Office brought to the court’s attention the

substantial      amount      of     work        the     office         would    bear

enforcing such dual requirements simultaneously.

       The court leaves it to the parties to decide how to

add this supplement to the record before the appeals

court.

       DONE, this the 6th day of June, 2025.

                                       /s/ Myron H. Thompson
                                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                      2

File and source

File

84.pdf

Size

71,206 bytes

SHA-256

25da55d6f9b62f2465292a3c2c289cb13eba2caefd275e663b154019e7f3238a

Our copy

84.pdf