Full text
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 1 of 40 PageID# 146
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case No. 1:25-po-492
v.
The Honorable John F. Anderson
BRYCE S. CARTER,
Defendant. Sentencing Date: October 7, 2025
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S POSITION ON SENTENCING
Every day, approximately 34 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes.1
Put another way, one person dies from a drunk-driving crash every forty-two minutes. Of
course, each one of these deaths is preventable – an intoxicated person can choose to get a ride
home from a friend, call a taxi or rideshare, or wait until he becomes sober before getting
behind the wheel. On February 27, 2025, however, Defendant Bryce S. Carter failed to take
any of these preventative steps. Instead, he did what he has done on several prior occasions – he
drove under the influence. For this offense, and the others he committed that night, which form
another link in the Defendant’s long chain of impaired driving incidents, the United States
respectfully recommends a sentence of 90 days’ imprisonment, five years of probation with the
special conditions described below, and a $2,000 fine, which is sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to achieve the goals of sentencing and to keep the community safe.
1
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, “Drunk
Driving,” https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving (last accessed September 29, 2025).
1
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 2 of 40 PageID# 147
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
The Defendant is a 36-year-old man from Washington, D.C. who has driven while
intoxicated for at least ten years.2 He was caught driving under the influence for the first time on
May 31, 2015. Presentence Investigation Report (hereinafter, “PSR”) ¶ 20, at 5. Early that
morning, a Honolulu police officer witnessed the Defendant back his vehicle right into another car.
Even after the collision, the Defendant kept his foot on the gas. Id. at 6. When the officer
approached the Defendant, he instructed the Defendant to press the brakes. Id. The Defendant
complied, then stumbled out of the car. Id. His eyes were red and bloodshot, his speech was slurred
and incoherent, and he begged the officers to let him go. The Defendant made statements such as
“I know I just hit that car,” “‘I am perfectly willing to take a taxi home,” and “my insurance will
cover the damage.” Id.
The Defendant’s physical signs of intoxication and conduct led the officer to arrest him for
operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant subsequent to a motor vehicle collision,3
and the Defendant was later convicted for driving while intoxicated, first offense. ¶ 20. The
Defendant’s commanding officer in the Army described his drunk driving as “reprehensible
behavior,” and relieved the Defendant of his duties as an executive officer because the Defendant
“failed to abide by the Army Values by driving under the influence of alcohol.” PSR ¶ 46. And
while the Defendant received an “Honorable” discharge from the Army, the reason provided for
his separation was “unacceptable conduct.” Id. at 14.
2
See Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) ¶ 20, 2015 conviction for driving while
intoxicated.
3
Exhibit 1, Hawaii Police Report.
2
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 3 of 40 PageID# 148
The Defendant’s discharge from the United States Army did not deter him from impaired
driving. A few years later, on May 20, 2018, the Defendant once again crashed into another car
while driving under the influence. PSR ¶ 22. At an intersection in Montgomery County, Maryland,
the Defendant blew through a stop sign at a high rate of speed and struck another car that was
lawfully driving through the intersection. This other car, driven by a 56-year-old man with his 12-
year-old daughter in the passenger’s seat, rolled over from the impact. Miraculously, neither victim
was injured. Id. at 7.
After the Defendant admitted to drinking earlier that day, police conducted Standard Field
Sobriety Tests (“SFST”), which the Defendant failed. And just as he did in Honolulu a few years
prior, the Defendant quickly tried to talk his way out of the situation, telling officers, “to be honest
with you, I can give my information, everything’s okay”, and that he was going to take an Uber
home. PSR ¶ 22, at 8. When a police officer asked the Defendant to submit to SFSTs, he responded
that he would rather go with the officer to be processed. Id. The Defendant then continued to plead
with the officers, telling them, ““I’ll just go wherever you want me to go.” Id. Ultimately, the
Defendant was arrested for driving a vehicle while impaired by alcohol, found guilty, and
sentenced to ninety days’ incarceration, with fifty-four days suspended, and seven months of
probation. Id. at 7. Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles records reflect that the Defendant is
required to have ignition interlock in his vehicle. Id. at 8.
So too did the Defendant’s thirty-six day sentence fail to deter him from dangerous driving.
On November 9, 2021, the Defendant was arrested in Virginia for attempted murder, felony
eluding, assault and battery, assault and battery on an officer, and reckless driving. That day, a
Virginia State Police officer received a “be on the lookout” alert for an AUDI Q5 that was seen
driving erratically and striking multiple vehicles without stopping. PSR ¶ 23, at 9. The officer
3
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 4 of 40 PageID# 149
later saw a vehicle matching that description, which the Defendant was driving erratically with his
hazard lights on, and his passenger side tires on the shoulder of the road. Id. Nearby vehicles
scrambled to move away from the Defendant’s car. Id. The officer turned on his emergency lights
and drove up behind the Defendant. Id. The Defendant sped forward and rammed his car into the
passenger side of another marked police car. Id. Both police cars followed the Defendant with
their emergency lights on and sirens activated. Id.
As he sped away, the Defendant struck a motorcyclist on I-95. Id. The motorcyclist was
able to remain mobile and tried to get away from the Defendant, but the Defendant followed
closely, continuing to disregard the police lights and sirens. Id. When the Defendant made a right
turn after exiting the interstate, one of the officers made a Pursuit Intervention Technique (“PIT”)
maneuver on the Defendant’s vehicle, which caused him and the motorcycle driver to crash in a
nearby yard. Id.
When the police officers approached the Defendant, they instructed him to exit his car and
get on the ground. Id. The Defendant climbed through his window and sat on the roof of his car.
He did not comply with commands, instead yelling that he had a taser. Id. Then, he took off his
clothing. Id. at 10. When an officer tried to handcuff the Defendant, he was combative. Id. He ran
around his car and across the street to avoid capture. Id. Another officer stepped in to assist with
the arrest, but the Defendant kept fighting and pulling his arms away. Id. The Defendant struck
the three officers several times and attempted to reach for the area on the officer’s belt where the
officer’s gun and mace were located. Id. When a fourth officer arrived, the police were finally
able to arrest the Defendant. Id.
The attempted murder charge was later dropped, but the Defendant was found guilty of
reckless driving and endangering life, limb, or property; four counts of assault and battery; and
4
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 5 of 40 PageID# 150
felony eluding or disregarding of police.4 PSR ¶ 23, at 8-9. The court sentenced the Defendant to
six consecutive terms of incarceration, all of which were suspended in large part. 5 After setting
aside the suspended portions of the sentences, the Defendant was sentenced to only 30 days’
imprisonment. Id. The Defendant did not sustain injuries, but two of the police officers and the
motorcycle victim did. One police officer sustained an injury to his left knee, while the other had
a head laceration and a broken finger from his efforts to arrest the Defendant.6 The motorcycle
driver was transported to the hospital for the injuries he sustained from the crash.7
B. February 27, 2025 Conduct
On February 27, 2025, at around 01:30 in the morning, the Defendant called 911 for
assistance. The Defendant told the Arlington, Virginia 911 operator that his car had broken down,
but he could not tell the operator where he was located, so he would just call an “Uber Black” and
“get out of [there].”8 The Defendant then provided a false name (“Ryan”) to the operator and hung
up midway through the call.9 The operator eventually determined that the Defendant was located
4
The Defendant entered an Alford plea in this case. At sentencing, the Defendant’s attorney
claimed that the Defendant was suffering from delusions during the incident. Virginia Sentencing
Audio Recording, provided to Defense during discovery.
5
For eluding and disregarding police, the Defendant received 5 years’ incarceration, with 4 years
and 355 days suspended, 2 years of supervised probation, and 90 days’ operator license suspension.
For each of the four Assault and Battery convictions, the Defendant was sentenced to 365 days’
incarceration, with 355 days suspended. Finally, for reckless driving/endangering life, limb, or
property, the Defendant received a 365-day sentence, with 355 days suspended, and a 6-month
operator license suspension. PSR ¶ 23.
6
This information was obtained from the Virginia State Police report narrative and the sentencing
audio recording, both of which were provided to Defense in discovery.
7
Id.
8
Arlington 911 Audio, produced to Defense during discovery.
9
Id.
5
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 6 of 40 PageID# 151
near the George Washington Memorial Parkway and alerted the United States Park Police
(“USPP”). The Arlington 911 operator informed USPP that the Defendant sounded “very
intoxicated” on the call.10 USPP officers responded to the scene and found the Defendant’s car
parked on the side of the road. PSR ¶ 10.
When the officers approached the vehicle, they found the Defendant in the driver’s seat of
the car. The officers attempted to speak with the Defendant, but he refused to roll down his car
windows, instead electing to tell the officers to “go to hell.”11 The Defendant later changed his
mind and exited the car voluntarily. Officers noticed that the Defendant smelled strongly of
mouthwash and alcohol. PSR ¶ 10. Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the
Defendant’s slurred speech and inability to stand or walk steadily without assistance, the USPP
officers determined that the Defendant was incapable of safely operating his vehicle and arrested
him for driving under the influence, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1). ECF No. 1; see also
PSR ¶ 10. Based on the location of his parked vehicle, the officers also cited the Defendant for
obstructing traffic, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.13(a). ECF No. 4.
Officers then conducted an inventory search of the Defendant’s vehicle and located empty
bottles of liquor and half-full bottles of whiskey and mouthwash. PSR ¶ 10. When USPP officers
took the Defendant to the police station, they read him Miranda warnings, provided him with a
Miranda warning acknowledgment form and consent for chemical testing form, and asked him to
take a blood alcohol concentration test. PSR ¶ 11. In response, the Defendant drew all over and
then ripped up the forms, threw a pen across the room, and refused to submit to the test, in violation
of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(c)(2). Id. See also ECF No. 3.
10
Id.
11
Body worn camera footage, produced to Defense during discovery. See also PSR ¶ 10.
6
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 7 of 40 PageID# 152
C. Procedural History
The traffic citations directed the Defendant to appear in court on March 6, 2025. ECF No.
2. When the Defendant failed to appear that day, this Court issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
ECF No. 10. The Defendant was arrested in the District of Maryland on March 28, 2025, and had
his initial appearance before this Court on April 1, 2025. ECF No. 17. This Court issued an order
for the Defendant’s pretrial release, which included a condition that the Defendant refrain from
operating a motor vehicle and attend mental health testing and treatment and take all medication
as directed. ECF No. 18. The Defendant later moved to modify his pretrial conditions to permit
him to drive with an ignition interlock device in his car, which motion this Court granted in part
on May 20, 2025. ECF Nos. 21, 25. On July 1, 2025, the Court issued a Petition and Order on
Violation of Pretrial Release regarding the Defendant’s dozens of missed remote alcohol tests,
April 12, 2025, test with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.020%, and May 20, 2025, positive
drug screen. ECF No. 34. On July 8, 2025, the Defendant pleaded guilty to all three charges. ECF
No. 38. The same day, the Court found him in violation of the conditions of his pretrial release as
alleged in the Petition and imposed a one-day step back. ECF No. 40.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
When making a sentencing decision, courts consult the Guidelines and the factors set forth
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), though the Guidelines are purely advisory. See United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220, 264 (2005); see also United States v. Kimbrough, 552 U.S. 85, 90 (2007). In this
case, however, the Defendant’s offenses all constitute Class B misdemeanors, which carry
maximum penalties of six months’ imprisonment, a $5,000 fine, and five years of probation. 36
7
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 8 of 40 PageID# 153
C.F.R. § 1.3; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1865; 3571.12 The Sentencing Guidelines do not apply to Class B or C
misdemeanors. United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 1B1.9; see also PSR ¶ 18. In
fashioning sentences for Class B and C misdemeanors, courts must impose a sentence authorized
by statute. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.9 & n.1; see also United States v. Harris, 27 F.3d 111, 116 (4th Cir.
1994). Without a relevant sentencing guideline as a “starting point and the initial benchmark,”
courts have great discretion in selecting appropriate sentences for Class B misdemeanors that
comport with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553. United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 293-94
(4th Cir. 2008) (citing Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596 (2007)).
Section 3553(a) directs the Court “in determining the particular sentence to impose” to
consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant; (2) the statutory purposes that counsel that the Court must impose a sentence
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to do the following:
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to
provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training,
medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner . . . .;
(3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range as set forth
in the Sentencing Guidelines; (5) the Sentencing Guidelines policy statements; (6) the need to
avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of
the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
12
The Defendant entered a plea of guilty to all three charged offenses, driving while intoxicated,
in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1), refusal to submit to a BAC test in violation of 36 C.F.R. §
4.23(c)(2), and stopping on the highway, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.13(a).
8
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 9 of 40 PageID# 154
III. ANALYSIS
At a minimum, this case involves three drunk driving convictions, four cars, and five
people. By the United States’ count, the Defendant has caused damage to at least this many
vehicles and harmed this many people by driving dangerously.13 The Defendant’s history counsels
in favor of a significant sanction in this case. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). The Defendant has
demonstrated time and again that he will put his comfort and convenience above the wellbeing of
other drivers. And when he gets caught, he either pleads with law enforcement to let him take an
Uber home or becomes combative and noncompliant. Those pleas reflect the Defendant’s
consciousness of guilt. Even while intoxicated, he knows what he is doing was wrong, but he
chooses to do it anyway, willfully disregarding both his own safety and that of other motorists who
shared the road with him. Because the Defendant has demonstrated his inability, or unwillingness,
to change, this Court’s intervention and supervision are necessary to protect the public from the
Defendant’s dangerous behavior. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C).
Specific deterrence is also particularly important in this case. The Defendant’s first DWI
in 2015, with a blood alcohol content of .19 grams per 100 liters of blood, resulted in a suspended
sentence and an order to complete an Alcohol Safety Action Program, which he did complete. PSR
¶ 20. This DWI also resulted in his separation from the United States Army, PSR ¶ 46, but this
life-altering consequence did not lead the Defendant to change his ways. Instead, just three years
later, the Defendant drove drunk again, this time in Montgomery County, Maryland. He struck
another motorist broadside as the other vehicle was lawfully travelling through an intersection. For
this offense the Defendant served thirty-six days in prison. Id. As a part of his sentence, the
13
One car in Hawaii, one car in Maryland, one police car and one motorcycle in Virginia. Two
victims in Maryland, two injured police officers and one motorcyclist sent to the hospital in
Virginia.
9
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 10 of 40 PageID# 155
Defendant also had to attend victim impact panel meetings to hear from those who have
experienced the devastating effects of drunk driving crashes.14 Even after hearing from these
victims, the Defendant continued to drive while intoxicated.
Finally, while not conclusively a driving while intoxicated or impaired incident, the
Defendant’s six-count conviction for felony eluding, assault and battery, and reckless driving,
against the background of the Defendant’s alcohol abuse, is incredibly concerning. This string of
incidents over the past ten years demonstrates that, in addition to a period of incarceration, the
Defendant should be placed under supervision by the Probation Office for the maximum term
allowable; five years. All the above incidents involved driving, most involved a traffic accident,
and they collectively demonstrate that the Defendant should not be driving. Thus, a special
condition of his probation should include a complete bar on driving within the United States. This
is a heavy sanction, but the Defendant’s history and characteristics warrant such a penalty.
Section 3553(a)(2)(A), the need to promote respect for the law, also counsels in favor of a
significant sentence. The Defendant appears, by his actions described above, to have a general
disregard for the law and the safety of law enforcement officers. PSR ¶¶ 9–13, 20–23. The
Defendant’s behavior on February 27, 2025, parallels his disrespectful behavior in past police
interactions. In this case, just as his previous DWIs, he behaved in an incoherent, uncooperative
manner when approached by police. Compare PSR ¶¶ 9–13, with PSR ¶ 20 and PSR ¶ 22. The
Defendant has not learned from his prior DWI convictions, and in his interactions with police
during this case, he demonstrated a complete disrespect for the law. PSR ¶ 11.
Nothing short of a significant term of imprisonment and prohibition of driving for five
years will serve to accomplish the goals of sentencing. To reflect the seriousness of these offenses,
14
Exhibit 2, Maryland Disposition.
10
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 11 of 40 PageID# 156
protect the public, deter both the Defendant and others from driving while intoxicated, promote
respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for his conduct, the United States respectfully
requests that this Court sentence the Defendant to ninety days of incarceration, followed by five
years of probation, with the special conditions that he attend the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action
Program and that he not be permitted to drive at all while under supervision, in addition to special
conditions one through four recommended in the PSR, and a $2000 fine.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
11
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 12 of 40 PageID# 157
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, the United States submits that a sentence of ninety days of
incarceration followed by five years of probation, with the special conditions that he attend the
Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program and that he not be permitted to drive at all while under
supervision, in addition to special conditions one through four recommended in the PSR, and a
$2000 fine is reasonable and accounts for each of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
the Guidelines.
Respectfully submitted,
Lindsey Halligan
United States Attorney
Christopher Galarza
Meredith R. Clement
Special Assistant United States Attorneys
Tony R. Roberts
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
Office: (703) 299-3800
Fax: (703) 299-3980
Email: meredith.clement2@usdoj.gov
12
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 13 of 40 PageID# 158
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on October 3, 2025, I caused a copy of the foregoing memorandum to
be filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically generate a
Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) to all counsel of record.
Christopher Galarza
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 14 of 40 PageID# 159
EXHIBIT 1
Honolulu Police Department Report on Incident
#15-213534 dated May 31, 2015
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 15 of 40 PageID# 160
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 16 of 40 PageID# 161
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 17 of 40 PageID# 162
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 18 of 40 PageID# 163
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 19 of 40 PageID# 164
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 20 of 40 PageID# 165
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 21 of 40 PageID# 166
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 22 of 40 PageID# 167
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 23 of 40 PageID# 168
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 24 of 40 PageID# 169
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 25 of 40 PageID# 170
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 26 of 40 PageID# 171
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 27 of 40 PageID# 172
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 28 of 40 PageID# 173
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 29 of 40 PageID# 174
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 30 of 40 PageID# 175
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 31 of 40 PageID# 176
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 32 of 40 PageID# 177
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 33 of 40 PageID# 178
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 34 of 40 PageID# 179
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 35 of 40 PageID# 180
EXHIBIT 2
Maryland v. Carter, No. 9T0PHF (Md. Feb. 19,
2019) Disposition
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 36 of 40 PageID# 181
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 37 of 40 PageID# 182
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA
5/5/25, 11:47 AM Document 46 Filed Details
10/03/25 Page 38 of 40 PageID# 183
Judicial Officer
Sarsfield, James B.
1 DRIVING VEH. WHILE IMPAIRED BY ALCOHOL Guilty
02/19/2019 Disposition
Judicial Officer
Sarsfield, James B.
1 DRIVING VEH. WHILE IMPAIRED BY ALCOHOL Guilty
02/19/2019 Converted Sentence
1 DRIVING VEH. WHILE IMPAIRED BY ALCOHOL Converted Sentence
Condition - Adult
1. Report as directed and follow Supervisor's instructions, REPORT AS DIRECTED, 02/19/2019, Active
02/19/2019
2. Supervision Fee Waived, PAY P&P SUPERVISION FEE - WAIVED, 02/19/2019, Active 02/19/2019
3. Work or attend school regularly as directed, WORK OR ATTEND SCHOOL REGULARLY, 02/19/2019, Active
02/19/2019
4. Permission from Sup. before changing addr,job, leaving state, GET PERMISSION TO MOVE, LEAVE
STATE ETC, 02/19/2019, Active 02/19/2019
5. Obey all laws and incur no serious motor violation, OBEY ALL LAWS; NO SERIOUS MV VIOLATIONS,
02/19/2019, Active 02/19/2019
6. Notify Supervisor if charged with criminal/jailable offense, NOTIFY SUPERVISOR IF CHARGED
W/OFFENSE, 02/19/2019, Active 02/19/2019
7. Permit your Supervisor to visit your home unannounced, PERMIT SUPERVISOR TO VISIT HOME,
02/19/2019, Active 02/19/2019
8. Do not illegally possess/use/sell controlled substance, DO NOT ILLEGALLY POSSESS/SELL CDS ETC.,
02/19/2019, Active 02/19/2019
9. Appear in court when notified to do so, APPEAR IN COURT WHEN NOTIFIED, 02/19/2019, Active
02/19/2019
10. Pay fines/costs/restitutions/fees as ordered by the court, PAY ALL FINES, COSTS, ETC. AS ORDERED,
02/19/2019, Active 02/19/2019
11. Refrain from driving after consuming alcohol, DO NOT DRIVE AFTER CONSUMING ALCOHOL,
02/19/2019, Active 02/19/2019
12. Enroll in, pay for, and complete treatment at ___(facility), ENROLL IN AND COMPLETE TREATMENT AT
VETERAN'S ADMIN., 02/19/2019, Active 02/19/2019
13. Attend Victim Impact Panel meetings when notified, ATTEND VICTIM IMPACT PANEL MEETINGS
REPORT 03/21/19 AT 06:00 PM, 02/19/2019, Active 02/19/2019
https://mdecportal.courts.state.md.us/MDODYSSEYPORTAL/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 3/5
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 39 of 40 PageID# 184
Case 1:25-po-00492-JFA Document 46 Filed 10/03/25 Page 40 of 40 PageID# 185