Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Fredrick

United States District Court, Sixth Circuit

October 22, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES EDWARD FREDRICK, Defendant.

ORDER

GREGORY F. VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition (also known as a Report and Recommendation or "R&R") [R. 55] filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. The Defendant, James Edward Fredrick, allegedly violated the terms of his supervised release by using a controlled substance without a proper prescription and by illegally possessing marijuana. [ Id. at 3.] Upon notification of that violation, the Court issued an arrest warrant. [R. 45.] This matter was then referred to Judge Ingram to conduct a final revocation hearing and recommend a proposed disposition of the matter. [R. 54.]

On August 28, 2013, Judge Ingram conducted a final hearing on revocation of Fredrick's supervised release. [R. 53.] At that hearing, Defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent stipulation to the charged violations. [R. 55 at 4.] On September 10, 2013 Judge Ingram issued an R&R which recommended a term of imprisonment consistent with the recommendation of the parties. [ Id. ] The penalty Judge Ingram recommended is an eighteen month term of incarceration with a re-imposition of supervised release for a life term. [ Id. at 7.] The R&R concluded by directing the parties' attention to the relevant statute which requires any objections to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. [ Id. at 7.] See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). There were no objections filed during the relevant time period and Fredrick waived his right of allocution. [R. 57.]

Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of a recommended disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, however, this Court is not required to "review... a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard...." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate's report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and it agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition.

Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Recommended Disposition [R. 55] as to James Edward Fredrick is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court;

(2) The Defendant, James Edward Fredrick, is found to have violated the terms of his Supervised Release as set forth in the Petition filed by the United States Probation Office [R. 44-1];

(3) Fredrick's Supervised Release is REVOKED;

(4) Fredrick is SENTENCED to the Custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a term of imprisonment of eighteen (18) months;

(5) Supervised release is REIMPOSED for the remainder of Fredrick's life under the same conditions as those imposed in the June 2013 Judgment [R. 43];

(6) The allocution hearing has been WAIVED [R. 57];

(7) The allocution hearing set for October 31, 2013 is CANCELLED, and;

(8) Judgment shall be entered promptly.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.