DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
DAVIDSON L. ALFRED, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Respondent. 
 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Civil No. 2012-36 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Davidson L. Alfred 
Gadsden, Florida 
 
Pro se, 
 
Gretchen Shappart 
Kim Chisholm 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For the United States.  
 
 
ORDER 
 
GÓMEZ, J. 
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the 
Magistrate Judge recommending that the Court deny Davidson 
Alfred’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition (the “2255 petition”).  
I. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY  
 
In December, 2012, the grand jury returned an indictment 
charging Davidson Alfred (“Alfred”) with transporting aliens in 
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 and assault with a deadly weapon on 
Case: 3:12-cr-00036-CVG-RM   Document #: 122   Filed: 03/15/19   Page 1 of 7
Alfred v. United States 
Criminal No. 2012-36 
Order 
Page 2 
 
a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (“the alien 
smuggling case”). The Magistrate Judge appointed Attorney George 
Hodge, Jr. (“Attorney Hodge”) to represent Alfred. Alfred was 
found guilty on both counts after a jury trial. On July 2, 2013, 
the Court sentenced Alfred to eight months imprisonment on each 
count, to be served concurrently. The Court also imposed a term 
of two years of supervised release on each count, also to be 
served concurrently. A condition of Alfred’s supervised release 
was that he “not commit another federal, state, or local crime.”  
 
On June 7, 2013, Alfred appealed the Court’s judgment. On 
May 23, 2014, the Third Circuit affirmed. United Stated v. 
Davidson, 567 F. App’x 90 (3d Cir. 2014).  
 
On May 15, 2014, while Alfred was on supervised release, he 
was charged with bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. 
(“the bank fraud case”). On November 4, 2014, Alfred pled guilty 
to bank fraud. Alfred’s commission of bank fraud violated the 
terms of Alfred’s supervised release imposed by the Court in the 
alien smuggling case. 
On January 9, 2015, Alfred appeared before the Magistrate 
Judge for an initial appearance for Alfred’s violation of the 
terms of supervised release in the alien smuggling case. Again, 
the Magistrate Judge appointed Attorney Hodge to represent 
Alfred. On January 27, 2015, after a revocation hearing, the 
Case: 3:12-cr-00036-CVG-RM   Document #: 122   Filed: 03/15/19   Page 2 of 7
Alfred v. United States 
Criminal No. 2012-36 
Order 
Page 3 
 
Court revoked Alfred’s supervised release and sentenced Alfred 
to 16 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. 
Alfred did not appeal. 
Alfred’s current 2255 petition seeks to set aside the 
sentence imposed by the Court for Alfred’s violation of the 
terms of supervised release in the alien smuggling case.  
II. DISCUSSION  
Litigants may make “specific written objections” to a 
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “[w]ithin 14 days 
after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition.” 
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 
(“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party 
may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings 
and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”). 
When a party makes a timely objection, the district court 
“make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report 
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 
objection is made.” Id. As Alfred has not had a full opportunity 
to object to the Report and Recommendation, the Court will 
review the Report and Recommendation de novo.1 
                     
1 See, e.g., MRL Dev. I, LLC v. Whitecap Inv. Corp., No. 2013-48, 2018 U.S. 
Dist. LEXIS 50126, at *7 (D.V.I. Mar. 27, 2018) (“[T]he Court is unaware of 
any authority that would require a district court to await the receipt of 
objections before reviewing a report and recommendation under a de novo 
standard.”) 
Case: 3:12-cr-00036-CVG-RM   Document #: 122   Filed: 03/15/19   Page 3 of 7
Alfred v. United States 
Criminal No. 2012-36 
Order 
Page 4 
 
Alfred makes four arguments in support of his 2255 
petition. First, Alfred asserts that the Court erred by imposing 
three years of supervised release for Alfred’s violation of 
supervised release in the alien smuggling case. Alfred argues 
that because the Court only imposed two years of supervised 
release in the alien smuggling case, the Court could not impose 
a longer sentence of supervised release for Alfred’s supervised 
release violation. Significantly, Alfred did not appeal the 
sentence imposed at the revocation hearing.2 The proper avenue to 
challenge a court’s sentence is on direct appeal. See United 
States v. Essig, 10 F.3d 968, 979 (3d Cir. 1993) (explaining 
that challenges to a district court’s sentence should be raised 
on direct appeal). “[I]f a petitioner has failed to raise an 
objection at the time of trial and has also failed to raise the 
issue on direct appeal, then collateral review of that claim is 
procedurally barred unless the petitioner is able to show 
‘cause’ excusing his procedural default and ‘actual prejudice’ 
resulting from the alleged error or violation.” Henry v. United 
States, 913 F. Supp. 334, 335 (M.D.Pa.1996), aff'd, 96 F.3d 1435 
(3d Cir. 1996). Alfred has not provided any reason for his 
failure to raise this argument on direct appeal.  
                     
2 At Alfred’s revocation hearing, Alfred was advised of his right to appeal 
the Court’s sentence within 14 days. (Minutes for January 28, 2015 Hearing; 
ECF No. 105 at 2).  
Case: 3:12-cr-00036-CVG-RM   Document #: 122   Filed: 03/15/19   Page 4 of 7
Alfred v. United States 
Criminal No. 2012-36 
Order 
Page 5 
 
Alfred’s second and third argument allege ineffective 
assistance of counsel. Alfred argues that Attorney Hodge 
provided ineffective assistance because Attorney Hodge failed to 
inform Alfred of the potential punishment for violating his term 
of supervised release. Alfred asserts that, based on Attorney 
Hodge’s counsel, Alfred believed that a violation of supervised 
release was accounted for in his sentencing for bank fraud in 
2014. Thus, according to Alfred, his sentence for violating the 
conditions of supervised release should have been 
inconsequential. 
Alfred also argues that Attorney Hodge rendered ineffective 
assistance when he advised Alfred that Officer Smith was 
incorrect when Officer Smith said that Alfred could be sentenced 
to additional time for violating the terms of his supervised 
release. 
Attorney Hodge’s supposed incorrect statements had no 
bearing on the outcome of Alfred’s sentence for violating a term 
of supervised release. It was well within the Court’s authority 
to punish Alfred for a violation of a condition of his 
supervised release. 8 U.S.C.S. § 3583. Any incorrect information 
that Attorney Hodge gave to Alfred did not result in the 
imposition of a longer sentence. Nor did Attorney Hodge fail to 
raise an argument that could have resulted in Alfred receiving a 
Case: 3:12-cr-00036-CVG-RM   Document #: 122   Filed: 03/15/19   Page 5 of 7
Alfred v. United States 
Criminal No. 2012-36 
Order 
Page 6 
 
lessor sentence. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 
(1984) (finding that a 2255 petitioner must show that “there is 
a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional 
errors, the result of the proceeding would have been 
different”). 
 
Finally, Alfred argues that the prosecutor stated in open 
court that she did not object to Alfred’s two sentences3 running 
concurrently. Later, Alfred argues that the prosecutor asserted 
the contrary position and argued that Alfred’s two sentences 
should not run concurrently. Significantly, the Court is not 
bound by the prosecutor’s recommendations at a sentencing 
hearing. It follows that Alfred cannot show that he was 
prejudiced by the prosecutor’s inconsistent positions because 
those statements had no bearing on Alfred’s sentence. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                     
3 Alfred’s two sentences were for: (1) a violation of a term of Alfred’s 
supervised release; and (2) the 2014 bank fraud case. 
Case: 3:12-cr-00036-CVG-RM   Document #: 122   Filed: 03/15/19   Page 6 of 7
Alfred v. United States 
Criminal No. 2012-36 
Order 
Page 7 
 
 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation docketed at ECF 
Number 121 is ADOPTED; it is further 
ORDERED that Davidson Alfred’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition is 
DENIED; it is further 
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
District Judge 
 
Case: 3:12-cr-00036-CVG-RM   Document #: 122   Filed: 03/15/19   Page 7 of 7