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, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London

May 7, 2015

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) [R. 67] filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. Defendant James Edward Fredrick is charged with three violations of his supervised release, including possessing or using a computer or a device with access to online computer services without approval of probation, and two counts of committing another crime. [R. 60; R. 67.]

On April 8, 2015, Judge Ingram conducted a final hearing and the Defendant stipulated to the charged violations. [R. 67 at 5.] On April 20, Judge Ingram issued a Report and Recommendation which recommended that his supervised release be revoked and that he be imprisoned for twenty-one months with five years of supervised release to follow. [ Id. at 10.] Judge Ingram appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3353 factors in coming to his recommended sentence. [ Id. at 5-10.] The Recommended Disposition advises the parties that objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. [ Id. at 10.] See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections were filed during the relevant time period and Fredrick waived his right of allocution. [R. 69.]

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. 67] as to the Defendant, James Fredrick, is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court;

(2) Fredrick is found to have violated the terms of his Supervised Release as set forth in the Petition filed by the U.S. Probation Office [R. 60];

(3) Fredrick's Supervised Release is REVOKED;

(4) Fredrick is SENTENCED to the Custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a term of twenty one (21) months with a five year term of supervised release to follow;

(5) Fredrick has WAIVED his right to allocution [R. 69]; and

(6) 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.