UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GREEN et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES,
v.
MICHAEL CHANDLER,
Defendant.
___________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO:
7:20-cr-15–WLS-ALS-2
ORDER
On January 22, 2026, the Court held a final hearing on the U.S. Probation Office’s
(“USPO”) Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision (Doc. 72)
(“Petition”), seeking to revoke Defendant Michael Chandler’s supervised release. This Order
memorializes that hearing.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On June 16, 2020, an Indictment (Doc. 1) was filed against Defendant, charging him
with Possession of a Firearm by a Prohibited Person in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(9) and
924(a)(2). On December 22, 2020, Defendant pled guilty to Possession of a Firearm by a
Prohibited Person. (Docs. 37, 38). On May 6, 2021, Defendant was sentenced to a 37-month
term of imprisonment to be served consecutively to any term of imprisonment that may be
imposed in Cook County Superior Court Case No. 2016-CR-116 for violation of probation.
The term of imprisonment was ordered to be followed by supervised release for a term of 3
years. (Doc. 63). Defendant’s supervised release started September 23, 2022.
On March 12, 2025, Probation filed a petition requesting the Court issue a warrant and
revoke Defendant’s supervised release (Doc. 72). Defendant was not arrested until October
31, 2025. He made his initial appearance on November 3, 2025, waived his rights to a
preliminary hearing, and consented to detention pending his final revocation hearing. (Doc.
78 and Docket Text 77).
Case 7:20-cr-00015-WLS-ALS Document 85 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 4

2
The Petition alleged 	Defendant 	committed the following six violations of the
conditions of his supervised release:
1. 	October 13, 2024 – Defendant failed to refrain from violating the law by
committing the offense of Simple Battery (Family Violence) (a violation of
O.C.G.A. § 16-5-23) in Tift County, Georgia.
2. 	October 13, 2024 – Defendant failed to refrain from violating the law by
committing the offense of Cruelty to Children, Third Degree (a violation of
O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70) in Tift County, Georgia.
3. 	February 9, 2025 – Defendant failed to refrain from violating the law by
committing the offense of Simple Battery (Family Violence) (a violation of
O.C.G.A. § 16-5-23) in Tift County, Georgia.
4. 	February 8, 2025 – Defendant failed to work regularly at a lawful occupation in
violation of Standard Condition #7 when Defendant was terminated by Ryland
Environmental in Tifton, Georgia, and as of the date of the Petition, had failed
to notify his officer of this change or any new acceptable employment.
5. 	February 13, 2025 – Defendant failed to notify the probation officer within
seventy-two hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer
in violation of Standard Condition #9. On or about February 13, 2025,
Defendant was arrested by the Tift County, Georgia Sheriff’s Office and failed
to notify the probation officer.
6. 	February 27, 2025 – Defendant failed to participate in an approved program
for domestic violence as directed in violation of the special condition of
supervision. Defendant was dismissed from the domestic violence program due
to excessive absences.
II. 	REVOCATION HEARING AND COURT ’S FINDINGS
At the final revocation hearing on January 22, 2026, Defendant acknowledged that he
had been served with the Petition for revocation and that he had reviewed it with his attorney.
The Court advised Defendant of his rights to a hearing on the allegations, and that at such
hearing, the Government would be required to prove the allegations by a preponderance of
the evidence; Defendant would be permitted to present evidence in his defense; and
Defendant would have the right to testify in his defense if he wanted to do so. Defendant was
also advised that he was not required to testify or present a defense at such hearing. He was
further advised that his decision whether to testify or not was his decision notwithstanding
any advice from his counsel or others. Defendant acknowledged he understood his rights. The
Court also confirmed that Defendant had received the Revocation Report (Doc. 83)
Case 7:20-cr-00015-WLS-ALS Document 85 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 4

3
(“Report”), reviewed it with his attorney, and had no objections to the Report which affected
the Guideline range as to sentencing.1 Defendant confirmed that he was not being coerced
into waiving his rights to a hearing, and that he wished to admit that he committed all six
alleged violations. The Court reviewed each of the alleged violations with Defendant, after
which Defendant admitted that he committed each such violation and stipulated to the facts
in the Report relating to such violations. The Court notes for the Record that as to Violations
1, 2 and 3, Defendant’s stipulation was only for purposes of the hearing upon the applicable
evidentiary standard, not for purposes of the higher evidentiary standard that would apply at
a criminal trial in the state courts of Georgia.
The Court found that Defendant freely, knowingly, and voluntarily waived his right to
a hearing and stipulated to the six violations of supervised release itemized in the Petition
(Doc. 72) for purposes of the revocation hearing. Counsel for the Government stated, and
Defendant and his counsel acknowledged, the factual circumstances supporting the allegations
and stipulations. As such, the Court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Defendant 	committed 	the 	alleged 	violations 	of 	his 	supervised 	release, 	and 	revoked
Defendant’s supervised release.2
The Court heard from the Government’s and Defendant’s counsel with respect to
sentencing. Based on Defendant’s original Criminal History Category of IV and Grade C
violation in the Petition, the Defendant’s U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range is 6 to 12 months.
Based on the totality of the circumstances of this case, including the Guideline range and the
factors found at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e), the Court sentenced Defendant to a term
of 12 months imprisonment to be following by 12 months of supervised release. The Court
1 Defendant objected to paragraph 15 of the Report in which Vantrissa Williams stated she believes Defendant
fired shots at her home on February 12, 2025, but Ms. Williams did not see Defendant shoot at her house.
Defendant asked the Court not to consider this incident in making its decision as it based on speculation, not
evidence. The Court agreed. Defendant’s second objection was to the information on page one of the Report
stating that Defendant was arrested on November 3, 2025. Defendant states he was arrested on October 31,
2025, and that his initial appearance was on November 3, 2025.
2 “Due process requires that the court state ‘the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking [supervised
release].’ This requirement is satisfied when the record is ‘sufficiently complete to advise the parties and the
reviewing court of the reasons for the revocation of supervised release and the evidence the decision maker
relied upon.’” United States v. Dees, 452 F. App’x 929, 931 (11th Cir. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting United
States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 414 (11th Cir. 1994)).
Case 7:20-cr-00015-WLS-ALS Document 85 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 4

4
found this sentence necessary to assist Defendant in his rehabilitation efforts, appropriate to
reflect the seriousness of Defendant’s conduct, promote respect for the law, provide adequate
deterrence of criminal conduct, and protects the public. The Court noted that the additional
term of supervised release is appropriate in this case given Defendant’s history of domestic
violence. The Government had no objection to the sentence as imposed. The Defendant
objected to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Upon consideration, the Court
overruled Defendant’s objection for reason of the Court’s findings regarding the appropriate
sentence.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For 	the 	afore-mentioned 	reasons, 	the 	Government’s 	Petition 	(Doc. 	72) 	is
GRANTED, 	and 	Defendant’s 	term 	of 	supervised 	release 	is 	hereby 	REVOKED.
Accordingly, Defendant Michael Chandler, is sentenced to a 12-month term of imprisonment
to be followed by a 12-month term of supervised release.
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of January 2026.
/s/W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:20-cr-00015-WLS-ALS Document 85 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 4