UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
No. 19-cr-370 (RDM)
v.
ERIC HERNANDEZ,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Terminate Supervision. See ECF No. 65. For
the reasons stated below, the court recommends GRANTING the motion.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On March 3, 2021, Mr. Hernandez pled guilty to Unlawful Possession of a Firearm and
Ammunition by a Person Previously Convicted of Crime Punishable by Imprisonment for a Term
Exceeding One Year in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See Sentencing Memorandum 4, ECF
No. 38. This conviction resulted in a sentence of seven months of incarceration, twenty-four
months of supervised release, and $100 special assessment. See Judgment 2–3, 6, ECF No. 41. His
special conditions of release included educational services programming, vocational services
programming, substance abuse treatment and testing, and reentry progress hearing. See id. at 4.
On August 5, 2021, the Probation Office filed a petition, alleging that Mr. Hernandez had
not submitted a DNA sample or paid his special assessment, failed to comply with random
urinalysis, and failed to follow instructions given by the probation office. See U.S. Probation Office
Pet., Reentry Progress Report 1–2, ECF No. 43. On August 10, 2021, Judge Moss issued a
summons for a Reentry Progress Hearing. See id. On August 30, 2021, Judge Moss held the
1
Reentry Progress Hearing. Judge Moss reminded Mr. Hernandez about the importance of
complying with the conditions of supervision.
On November 23, 2021, the Probation Office filed a petition with three new alleged
violations. See U.S. Probation Office Pet., Statement of Alleged Violations of Supervised
Release/Pet. for Warrant 1–2, ECF No. 48. First, Mr. Hernandez submitted a urine specimen which
tested positive for narcotics. See id. at 1. Second, Mr. Hernandez failed to attend weekly substance
abuse meetings and left a treatment facility without authorization. See id. at 2. Mr. Hernandez told
his probation officer that he left due to symptoms related to narcotics withdrawal. See id. at 4.
Third, Mr. Hernandez failed to report to the Probation Office and was homeless with his
whereabouts unknown. See id. at 2, 4. On November 30, 2021, Judge Moss issued an arrest warrant
based on these violations.
On March 17, 2022, Mr. Hernandez conceded to the three violations in the petition. See
Minute Entry (Mar. 17, 2022). On March 22, 2022, Judge Moss ordered Mr. Hernandez’s release
from detention subject to a bed-to-bed transfer to a treatment center. See Order, ECF No. 50.
On May 3, 2023, the Probation Office filed a petition alleging that Mr. Hernandez violated
the conditions of his supervised release by failing to report for substance use testing, failing to
refrain from the unlawful use of controlled substances, failing to participate in a substance abuse
treatment program, failing to report to his probation officer, failing to obtain full-time employment,
and failing to enroll in educational and vocational services programs. See U.S. Probation Office
Pet., Statement of Alleged Violation of Supervised Release/Pet. for Summons 2–3, ECF No. 54.
At the time, Mr. Hernandez was residing with his mother in a stable residence and remained
unemployed. See id. at 4. On May 5, 2023, Judge Moss issued a summons and scheduled a hearing
on violation. See Order, ECF No. 55.
2
On July 18, 2023, Judge Moss found that the defendant had violated the conditions of
supervision and imposed a sanction of 90 days of location monitoring. See Minute Entry (Jul. 18,
2023).
On November 20, 2023, the Probation Office filed a petition alleging that Mr. Hernandez
again violated the conditions of his supervised release by failing to report for substance use testing,
failing to participate in a substance abuse treatment program, failing to report to his probation
officer, failing to obtain full-time employment, and failing to enroll in educational and vocational
services programs. See U.S. Probation Office Pet., Statement of Alleged Violations of Supervised
Release/Petition for Summons 2–3, ECF No. 59. At the time, Mr. Hernandez was still residing
with his mother in a stable residence and remained unemployed. See id. at 4. On November 21,
2023, Judge Moss issued a summons in reference to this petition. See Order, ECF No. 60.
On November 27, 2023, Maryland law enforcement arrested Mr. Hernandez. See U.S.
Probation Office Pet., Statement of Additional Alleged Violations of Supervised Release/Pet. for
Summons 4, ECF No. 61. A search incident to arrest revealed that Mr. Hernandez was in
possession of oxycodone and cocaine. See id. The Maryland court released Mr. Hernandez on his
own recognizance. See id. The court scheduled trial for January 18, 2024. See id. On December
11, 2023, the Probation Office filed a petition noting this new arrest. See id. at 1–2. On January
31, 2024, Mr. Hernandez failed to appear for his hearing, and the hearing was rescheduled for
February 23, 2024. See Minute Order (Feb. 1, 2024). On February 23, 2024, Mr. Hernandez again
failed to appear for his hearing. See Minute Entry (Feb. 23, 2024). Judge Moss issued an arrest
warrant. See id.
On July 9, 2026, Mr. Hernandez was travelling in an Uber which law enforcement stopped
for a traffic violation. See ECF No. 65 at 2. Law enforcement arrested Mr. Hernandez during the
3
stop based on the outstanding warrant. See id. On July 9, 2026, Mr. Hernandez appeared before
the undersigned for a return on arrest warrant and detention hearing. See Minute Order (Jul. 9,
2026). The Probation Office did not seek his detention, and the Court ordered his release. See id.
On July 13, 2026, Mr. Hernandez filed a motion to terminate supervision. See Mem. in
Support of Request for Termination of Supervision, ECF No. 65. On July 14, 2026, the Court held
a hearing on the motion. The Probation Office consented to the request, and the government
deferred to the Probation Office. See id. at 1.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Mr. Hernandez’s Progress
The Court’s main question was: where has Mr. Hernandez been for the past two years? His
answer was impressive.
On April 15, 2024, Mr. Hernandez entered treatment at the Priceless Hearts Behavioral
Health Center substance abuse program in Baltimore, Maryland. See ECF No. 65 at 1–2.
Mr. Hernandez chose the program in part to get away from negative social influences in the D.C.
area. See id. at 1. Mr. Hernandez remained in the program for one year. See id. at 2. The program
provided him with housing during this time. See id. Ultimately, Mr. Hernandez “resolved the
pending [Maryland] matter by Zoom, and he was not convicted of any new offense.” Id.1
In June 2025, Mr. Hernandez obtained an apartment in Baltimore. He lives there with his
wife and their nine-year-old daughter. See id. Mr. Hernandez also obtained a job at Petco. Because
he was unable to get full-time shifts there, he continued to look for other employment. See id. In
1
Mr. Hernandez stated that he subsequently went to the D.C. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) to check the status on his supervision. CSOSA had no record of his supervision. Mr. Hernandez mistakenly understood this to mean that his supervision was complete.
4
July 2026, he obtained a full-time position with a landscaping company. See id. He currently works
both jobs to support himself and his family. See id.
At bottom, “the primary purpose of supervised release is to facilitate the integration of
offenders back into the community rather than punish them.” U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, Federal
Offenders Sentenced to Supervised Release (2010) (“Supervised Release Report”) 9. Indeed,
“[s]upervised release fulfills rehabilitative ends, distinct from those served by incarceration.”
United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59 (2000). Thus, when a “defendant violates a condition of
supervised release, courts must consider the forward-looking sentencing ends, but may not
consider the backward-looking purpose of retribution.” Esteras v. United States, 606 U.S. 185,
186 (2025) (holding that a district court may not revoke supervised release based on a belief that
the defendant’s original sentence was lenient).
B. Resolving the Current Petition
Because the underlying Maryland case was resolved, the Probation Office only sought to
move forward with the two technical violations. Both were Grade C violations. Mr. Hernandez
admitted both violations and asked for the termination of his supervision.
Mr. Hernandez’s supervision has reached the end of its useful lifespan. His supervision
was set to expire on September 21, 2024. Since the filing of the petition, Mr. Hernandez has gotten
his life together. There are no further resources the Probation Office needs to offer Mr. Hernandez.
He has stable housing, is fully employed, and is drug free. Should he need further support, he can
seek that on his own. See Status Hearing (Jul. 14, 2026). Indeed, he enrolled in the year-long
treatment program of his own volition.
Mr. Hernandez’s sustained streak of lawful behavior is the best evidence that he is not a
risk to public safety necessitating deterrence. And “[t]here is no indication of how additional
5
punishment furthers deterrence.” United States v. Nwenze, No. 19-cr-285, 2024 WL 4608867, at
*4 (D.D.C. 2024). In fact, further incarceration endangers Mr. Hernandez and the public. See
United States v. Bryant, 778 F. Supp. 3d 14, 22 n.7 (D.D.C. 2025) (discussing how “[e]xposure to
the specific and general harms . . . detainees experience can result in long-lasting trauma”); Katie
Rose Quandt and Alexi Jones, Research Roundup: Incarceration Can Cause Lasting Damage to
Mental Health, Prison Pol’y Initiative (May 13, 2021), https://perma.cc/N6C2-8UWF (examining
how experiencing or witnessing violence during incarceration was significantly related to
“aggressive and antisocial behavioral tendencies as well as emotional distress”). And further
incarceration would derail whatever progress he has made over the prior years. See United States
v. Mosley, 312 F. Supp. 3d 1289, 1294 (M.D. Ala. 2018).
III. CONCLUSION
Given that Mr. Hernandez’s period of supervision was set to expire on September 21, 2024,
he appears to pose no danger to the community, he completed a lengthy treatment program, he
took responsibility for the Grade C violations, and based on the Probation Office’s consent: the
undersigned recommends a finding that Mr. Hernandez violated his conditions of release, sentence
him to a period of time served, and not impose any further period of supervision.2
Zia Digitally signed by Zia
M.Faruqui
Date: August 4, 2026
M.Faruqui Date: 2026.08.04
13:18:09 -04'00'
ZIA M. FARUQUI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
Per the Probation Office, no hearing is needed to adopt this Recommendation, as no additional supervision is ordered. Adoption of the Report and Recommendation would close this case.
6