Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

United States v. Adams

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London

January 20, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHNNA LESHAE ADAMS, Defendant.

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

HANLY A. INGRAM, Magistrate Judge.

The Court, on referral (D.E. 157), considers reported violations of supervised release conditions by Defendant Johnna Leshae Adams. District Judge Van Tatenhove entered a judgment against Defendant on March 9, 2012, for conspiracy to manufacture 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). D.E. 99. Defendant was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release to follow. Id. at 2-3. Defendant's term of supervised release began on April 7, 2014.

On June 17, 2014, the United States Probation Office ("USPO") issued a noncompliance summary ("the Summary") stating that, on May 30, 2014, Defendant submitted a urine test which tested positively for oxycodone, a Schedule II controlled substance. D.E. 143 at 1. Defendant admitted taking oxycodone, but assured Officer Kincer that it was an isolated incident. Id. Officer Kincer recommended that no action be taken, in part because Defendant, on her own initiative, signed up for intensive outpatient substance abuse counseling. Id. Judge Van Tatenhove approved Officer Kincer's recommendation. Id. at 2.

On June 19, 2014, the USPO issued a Supervised Release Violation report ("the First Report") charging Defendant with two violations, and then secured a warrant from District Judge Van Tatenhove on June 25, 2014. D.E. 145. First, per the First Report, Defendant violated Standard Condition No. 7, which proscribes controlled substance use, when her urine tested positively for the presence of Oxycodone on June 18, 2014, and Defendant admitted to recent use of Oxycodone. This is a Grade C violation. Second, in relation to this positive drug test and admission, the First Report charged Defendant with failure to refrain from committing another federal, state, or local crime. Noting the Sixth Circuit's decision that use of a controlled substance includes possession and Defendant's criminal history, Violation Two charged Defendant with conduct that would be a federal crime, that is, possession of Oxycodone. Such conduct would be a Class E Felony pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 844(a), Simple Possession of a Controlled Substance. This is a Grade B violation.

The Court conducted an initial appearance pursuant to Rule 32.1 on July 15, 2014, and set a final hearing following Defendant's knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of her right to a preliminary hearing. D.E. 147. At that time, the United States made an oral motion for interim detention, to which Defendant did not object. Id. Based on the heavy burden on Defendant under 18 U.S.C § 3143(a), the Court found that detention was required. Id.

At the final hearing on July 31, 2014, Defendant was afforded all rights due under Rule 32.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3583. D.E. 150. Defendant competently entered a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent stipulation to both violations. Id. For purposes of Rule 32.1 proceedings, Defendant admitted the factual basis for both violations as described in the First Report. In the Supervised Release context, the Sixth Circuit treats controlled substance use as equivalent to possession. See United States v. Crace, 207 F.3d 833, 836 (6th Cir. 2000). The United States thus established both violations under the standard of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).

The Court continued the final hearing to allow Defendant to complete a demanding inpatient substance abuse treatment program (Liberty Place), which requires a minimum of six months participation. Id. The Court imposed bond conditions[1] requiring that Defendant: (1) follow directions of the USPO, (2) follow all rules and instructions of Liberty Place, and (3) report immediately to Liberty Place upon release. Id. The Court set Defendant's final revocation hearing for February 13, 2015. D.E. 152.

On January 5, 2015, the USPO issued a second Supervised Release Violation report ("the Second Report") charging Defendant with three new violations, and then secured a warrant from the Court on the same date. D.E. 156-1. The Second Report charged Defendant with three new violations. First, per the Second Report, Defendant violated Standard Condition No. 2 which requires Defendant to answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and to follow the directions of the probation officer. The Second Report indicates that Defendant was instructed on July 31, 2014 (after her final hearing was continued), by probation to report to Liberty Place immediately, complete the long term substance abuse treatment program, and follow all program rules. On January 2, 2015, per the Second Report, Officer Kincer was contacted by staff at Liberty Place advising that Defendant had left the facility against advice of staff members. Defendant returned to Liberty Place in the early morning hours of January 3, 2015, and was drug tested. According to staff, Defendant tested positively for benzodiazepines and oxycodone, and later admitted to taking four Xanax bars and two Percocet "30s." Additionally, the Second Report indicates that Officer Kincer was informed by staff at Liberty Place that Defendant was transported to the hospital for a high fever on January 4, 2015, but she did not return to Liberty Place. This is a Grade C violation.

Second, the Second Report charges Defendant with a violation of Standard Condition No. 7, which proscribes controlled substance use, based upon the positive test for use of benzodiazepines and oxycodone following her return to Liberty Place, and her admission to Liberty Place staff that she had taken Xanax and Percocet. This is a Grade C violation. Third, in relation to this positive drug test and admission, the Second Report charges Defendant with failure to refrain from committing another federal, state, or local crime. Again noting the Sixth Circuit's decision that use of a controlled substance includes possession and Defendant's criminal history, Violation Three charges Defendant with conduct that would be a federal crime, that is, possession of benzodiazepines and oxycodone. Such conduct would be a Class E Felony pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 844(a), Simple Possession of a Controlled Substance. This is a Grade B violation.

The Court conducted an initial appearance on the Second Report pursuant to Rule 32.1 on January 6, 2015, and set a final hearing following Defendant's knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of her right to a preliminary hearing. D.E. 158. At that time, the United States made an oral motion for interim detention, and Defendant argued for release. Id. Based on the heavy burden on Defendant under 18 U.S.C § 3143(a), the Court found that detention was required. Id.

At the final hearing on January 13, 2015, Defendant was afforded all rights due under Rule 32.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3583. D.E. 161. Defendant competently entered a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent stipulation to all three violations charged in the Second Report. Id. For purposes of Rule 32.1 proceedings, Defendant admitted the factual basis for all three violations. In the Supervised Release context, the Sixth Circuit treats controlled substance use as equivalent to possession. See United States v. Crace, 207 F.3d 833, 836 (6th Cir. 2000). The United States therefore established all three violations in the Second Report under the standard of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).

Thus, Defendant admitted to all five supervised release violations, and the Court proceeded with allocution. The Court has evaluated the entire record, both Supervised Release Violation Reports, and accompanying documents, and the sentencing materials from the underlying Judgment. Additionally, the Court has considered all of the § 3553 factors imported into the § 3583(e) analysis. Under § 3583(e)(3), a defendant's maximum penalty for a supervised release violation hinges on the gravity of the underlying offense of conviction. Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), which is a Class B felony. See 21 U.S.C. § 841; 18 U.S.C. § 3559. For a Class B felony, the maximum revocation sentence provided under § 3583 is three years of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).

The Policy Statements in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines provide advisory imprisonment ranges for revocation premised on criminal history (at the time of original sentencing) and the "grade" of the particular violation proven. See United States v. Perez-Arellano, 212 F.Appx. 436, 438-39 (6th Cir. 2007) ("Although the policy statements found in Chapter Seven of the United States Sentencing Guidelines recommend ranges of imprisonment, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, such statements are merely advisory' and need only be considered by the district court before sentence is imposed.") (citation omitted). Under § 7B1.1, Defendant's admitted conduct would qualify as Grade C violations with respect to Violation One on the First Report and Violations One and Two in the Second Report, and Grade B violations with respect to Violation Two on the First Report and Violation Three on the Second Report. Given Defendant's criminal history category of I (the category at the time of the conviction) and Grade B violations, see U.S.S.G § 7B1.2(b) ("Where there is more than one violation of the conditions of supervision, or the violation includes conduct that constitutes more than one offense, the grade of the violation is determined by the violation having the most serious grade."), Defendant's range, under the Revocation Table of Chapter 7, is four to ten months.

Each party offered its own recommendation to the Court regarding an appropriate sentence. The United States urged the Court to revoke and impose a sentence of sixteen months imprisonment followed by a thirty-six month period of supervised release. The United States argued that this upward departure was necessary because of the substantial breach of the Court's trust that Defendant's conduct represented. The United States pointed out that the Court placed a significant amount of trust in Defendant to complete the program at Liberty Place, and Defendant's failure to do so indicated that the Court does not have her ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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