United States v. Thomas
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
Date FiledSeptember 17, 2026
DocketCriminal No. 2017-0061
JudgeMagistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 17-cr-061-CRC
ERIC THOMAS,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 18, 2024, the Probation Office filed a petition requesting that Judge Cooper
issue a warrant and hold a hearing on violation based on the Defendant’s failure to report to the
probation office upon his release from custody. See ECF No. 37. This is a Grade C violation. See
id. On November 14, 2024, Judge Cooper issued the warrant. See ECF No. 38.
On February 10, 2025, the Defendant appeared before the undersigned for a return on arrest
warrant and detention hearing. The undersigned released the Defendant.
On February 12, 2025, Judge Cooper referred the final hearing on violation to the
undersigned pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2). 1
Since then, the undersigned has held several reentry progress hearings. The Defendant has
had mixed success. He successfully completed intensive inpatient treatment. See ECF No. 41.
1
The parties are advised that, under the provisions of Local Rule 72.3(b), any party who objects
to the Report and Recommendation must file a written objection thereto with the Clerk of this
Court within fourteen days of the party’s receipt of this Report and Recommendation. The written
objections must specifically identify the portion of the report and/or recommendation to which
objection is made and the basis for such objections. The parties are further advised that failure to
file timely objections to the findings and recommendations set forth in this report may waive their
right of appeal from an order of the District Court that adopts such findings and recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 144–45 (1985).
1
However, the Defendant was unable to complete the next phase of the treatment program. The
Defendant was subsequently arrested for leaving the treatment facility. The Defendant admitted to
his mistake and agreed to his own detention. Defendant attempted a second treatment program
thereafter, with similar results. In total, the Defendant spent approximately 28 days in custody
related to the pending petition.
On January 16, 2026, the undersigned held a hearing on violation. The defendant admitted
to the Grade C violation. The U.S. Probation Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office recommended
revocation of the Defendant’s supervised release, that the court sentence him to time served, and
that the Court impose no additional period of supervision. The parties based this recommendation
on the fact that: Defendant’s supervision was set to expire on September 29, 2026; he had mixed
success on supervision; he had no new law violations; and further treatment programs were
unlikely to be successful.
Based on the Defendant’s admission and the parties’ joint request, the Court recommends
finding that the Defendant violated his conditions of release as stated in the outstanding petition,
that the Defendant’s supervision should be revoked, and that the Court impose a sentence of time
served with no additional period of supervision. 1
Date: September 17, 2025 ___________________________________
ZIA M. FARUQUI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1
Per the Probation Office, no hearing is needed to adopt this Report and Recommendation, as no
additional supervision is ordered. Adoption of the Report and Recommendation would close this
case.
2