United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
Gregory F. Van Tatenhove United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition
(“R&R”) [R. 349] filed in the Record by
United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram on November
16, 2016. The Magistrate's Recommended Disposition was
requested following the revocation of James Thomas Woods'
supervised release and the issuance of a warrant by this
Court. [R. 344.] Initially, on November 25, 2014, Mr. Woods
was sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment followed by five
years of supervised release. [R. 349 at 1.] Defendant Woods
began his supervised release term on June 28, 2016.
[Id.] Mr. Woods' supervised release was revoked
following a urine sample that tested positive for
methamphetamine use. When asked about the result, the
Defendant admitted to using methamphetamine on October 19,
2016, as well as chewing on a fentanyl patch. [Id.]
Since Mr. Woods violated four separate terms of his
supervised release conditions and admitted these violations,
the Magistrate Judge recommends revocation with a term of
imprisonment of six months to be followed by a 60 month term
of supervised release under the conditions previously imposed
at Docket Entry 306. [Id. at 7.]
November 15, 2016, Judge Ingram conducted a final hearing on
revocation of Woods' supervised release. [Id. at
3.] At the revocation hearing, Woods admitted the factual
basis for the violations described by the USPO in the
Supervised Release Violation Report by “competently
enter[ing] a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent stipulation
to violations #1, #2, #3 and #4.” [Id.] The
United States argued for revocation and eight months of
imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised
release. Defense counsel noted that Mr. Woods' actions
were mitigating as he quickly admitted drug use to the
probation officer, after being questioned about the results,
and Mr. Woods was willing to stipulate to the violations.
[Id. at 5.] Further, Defense counsel notified the
court that Mr. Woods accepted responsibility for these
violations and even admitted fentanyl use which had not been
detected by the drug test. [Id.] Unfortunately, Mr.
Woods committed this violation only after four months of
supervised release and “his violations were reminiscent
of his underlying offense, which involved procuring meth
ingredients in exchange for meth to feed his
evaluation of the entire record, the Report, the § 3553
factors imported into the section 3583(e) analysis, the
Guidelines range, accompanying documents, and the sentencing
materials, Magistrate Judge Ingram issued an R&R
recommending revocation with a term of imprisonment of six
(6) months and a term of supervised release of sixty (60)
months under the conditions previously imposed at Docket
Entry 306. [Id. at 7.] In making this
“within-Guidelines” recommendation, Judge Ingram
reiterates that Congress mandates revocation in a case of
this nature. [R. 349 at 6-7 (referencing 18 U.S.C. §
3583(g)(1)).] In evaluating the nature and circumstances of
Defendants' conviction, the Magistrate Judge found that
Defendant Woods had engaged in substantial drug manufacturing
crimes that “supplied pseudoephedrine with a marijuana
equivalence of 400 to 700 kilograms.” [Id. at
6.] Crimes of this nature are not only harmful to the
Defendant, but also to members of the community at large.
Court and the Magistrate must consider the Defendant's
history and characteristics, and the need to deter criminal
conduct and protect the public when imposing a sentence.
While Mr. Woods was quick to accept responsibility for
violating the terms of his supervised release, he did engage
in drug use that was reminiscent of his underlying offense.
Further, the “primary wrong in the supervised release
context is the violation of the Court's trust by an
offender.” The Magistrate Judge noted that Mr.
Woods' shall be subject to the same release conditions as
those imposed in Docket Entry 306 which do provide for drug
treatment programs and resources at the discretion of the
USPO. The R&R concludes by directing the parties to the
relevant statute that requires any objections to be filed
within fourteen (14) days of service. [Id. at 8.] As
of this date, neither party has filed objections nor sought
an extension of time to do so. Further, Mr. Woods has
submitted a Waiver of Allocution that was signed by himself
and defense counsel. [R. 350.]
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 recommended
disposition 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.
and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
Magistrate's Recommended Disposition [R. 349] as to James
Thomas Woods is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court;
Defendant, James Thomas Woods, is found to have violated the
terms of his Supervised Release as set forth in the Petition
filed by the United States Probation Office and the
Recommended Disposition of the Magistrate Judge; and
Woods' Supervised Release is REVOKED; and
Woods is hereby sentenced to a term of incarceration for six
(6) months with a term of supervised release of sixty (60)
months to follow; and
term of supervised release shall be imposed under the same