UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WHITE

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CASE NO.: 7:21-CR-00057
:
ANTHONY LAMAR WHITE, 	:
:
Defendant. 	:
:
ORDER
The Court held a hearing on the United States Probation Office’s Petition (Doc. 50) to
revoke Defendant Anthony White’s supervised release. This Order memorializes that hearing.
Previously, White pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a Schedule II controlled
substance (methamphetamine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii) and 18
U.S.C. § 2. The Petition alleges four violations of his supervised release. (Doc. 50 at 1.)
At the hearing, Defense Counsel acknowledged that White had been provided with
a copy of the Petition for revocation and that he had reviewed it with Counsel. The Court
advised White of his rights to a hearing on the allegations, in which the Government would
be required to prove the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence; to present
evidence in his defense; and to testify. White was also advised that he was not required to
testify or present a defense and whether he would testify was his decision—all of which
White acknowledged he understood. The Court also confirmed from White that he had
received the Petition and the Revocation Report (Doc. 63) and reviewed them. White
stated that he had spoken to Counsel and wished to stipulate to Violations One, Three,
and Four. Because White stipulated to Violations One, Three, and Four, the Government
withdrew the allegation of Violation Two. The Court also found that White’s waiver of a
hearing on the Petition was freely, knowingly, and voluntarily done.
Because White stipulated to Violations One, Three, and Four, the Court found that
the violations in the Petition had been established by a preponderance of the evidence.1
1 “Due process requires that the court state ‘the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking
[supervised release.’” United States v. Dees, 452 F. App’x 929, 931 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States
Case 7:21-cr-00057-WLS-ALS Document 65 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 2

2
Once the violations had been established, the Court heard from the Government, Defense
Counsel, and Defendant White. Neither White nor the Government objected to the
Revocation Report. The Court then declared White’s supervised release revoked.
The Court determined White’s U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range to be 30 to 37 months
based on Grade A violations and a criminal history category of V. The Court determined
White’s statutory maximum sentence upon revocation of supervised release to be 24 months.
Considering the totality of circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e) factors, the
Court sentenced White to 24 months imprisonment. The Court found this sentence
appropriate to reflect the seriousness of White’s conduct and to protect the public. White’s
imprisonment shall not be followed by a term of supervised release in view of Defendant’s
extensive probationary sentence under a state court conviction.
For these reasons, the Petition (Doc. 50) is GRANTED, and White’s supervised
release is REVOKED. Defendant is sentenced to 24 months imprisonment. After his release,
he will not have a term of supervised release.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of December 2025.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 414 (11th Cir. 1994)). “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.’” Id. (citations omitted).
Case 7:21-cr-00057-WLS-ALS Document 65 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 2