Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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. Bancroft

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division at Covington

February 20, 2018



          Candace J. Smith United States Magistrate Judge.

         On December 14, 2017, this matter came before the Court for a Final Revocation Hearing on the United States Probation Office's Report that Robert Donald Bancroft had violated conditions of his supervised release. Defendant was present in Court and represented by court-appointed counsel Frank Mungo, and the Government was represented by Supervisory Assistant United States Attorney Robert K. McBride. U.S. Probation Officer Stacey Suter was also present for this proceeding.

         Upon call of this matter at the December 14 Final Revocation Hearing, counsel informed the Court that they had reached an agreement on the pending violations. Specifically, Defendant agreed to admit to Violations 3 and 4 as alleged in the December 13, 2017 Supplemental Violation Report (R. 133). In exchange, the Government agreed to move to dismiss Violations 1 and 2 as alleged in the December 1, 2017 Violation Report (R. 129), and to recommend a term of incarceration of 18 months with no new term of supervision to follow. In addition, the parties each agreed to waive the objection period to this Report and Recommendation to the extent the undersigned recommends a sentence consistent with the parties' agreement. Likewise, Defendant agreed to waive his right to allocute provided that the undersigned's recommended sentence reflects the parties' agreement. (See R. 131). Defendant did not waive his right to appeal as part of this agreement.

         Upon consideration, the parties' agreement is an appropriate proposed disposition of this matter. Therefore, it will be recommended that Defendant's supervised release be revoked and that he be sentenced to an 18-month term of imprisonment with no supervision to follow.


         On August 5, 2010, Defendant appeared in U.S. District Court in Covington, Kentucky, before the Honorable David L. Bunning, U.S. District Judge, and pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute explosives without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 842(a)(3)(B) and 844(n). (R. 70, R. 97). On November 10, 2010, Judge Bunning entered Judgment, sentencing Defendant to a total term of imprisonment of 57 months with a 3-year term of supervised release to follow. (R. 95, R. 97). On May 30, 2014, Defendant was released from prison to begin his term of supervision through the United States Probation Office in Covington, Kentucky. (R. 114). Thereafter, Defendant was brought before this Court on allegations that he violated the terms of his supervised release by using marijuana and alcohol. (See R. 117). After a hearing before the undersigned, and the issuance of a Report and Recommendation (R. 117), the presiding District Judge on April 4, 2016, found Defendant to be in violation of the terms of his supervised release, which was ordered revoked. (R. 118). Defendant was sentenced to a 12-month term of imprisonment, with a 24-month term of supervised release to follow. Defendant was released from custody on March 15, 2017, to commence this new term of supervised release.

         On December 1, 2017, Officer Suter petitioned for Defendant to appear before the Court and address alleged violations of his supervision. (R. 123). Summons was issued (R. 125), and Defendant initially appeared on December 11, 2017. (R. 126). The charged violations were presented to the Court via the Probation Officer's December 1, 2017 Violation Report. (R. 129). The violation charges were reviewed with Mr. Bancroft, the potential penalties were explained, and a final revocation hearing was scheduled. (R. 126). Defendant was then remanded into federal custody. (Id.). On December 13, 2017, the U.S. Probation Officer issued a Supplemental Violation Report (R. 133), stating that Mr. Bancroft reported to the U.S. Probation Office in order to submit a urine screen on December 7, 2017, and that the results returned as positive for methamphetamine. Two additional charges, Violations 3 and 4, were presented to the Court in the Supplemental Violation Report based upon these positive results. (See id.).

         Upon call of the case for the final revocation hearing, the Court first reviewed the December 13, 2017 Supplemental Violation Report (R. 133) with Defendant and confirmed that Mr. Bancroft had an opportunity to review this Supplemental Report with his counsel. The Court then reviewed the additional violation charges with Mr. Bancroft and explained the potential penalties. As noted above, counsel proceeded to inform the Court that the parties had reached an agreement: Mr. Bancroft was prepared to admit to Violations 3 and 4 as set forth in the December 13, 2017 Supplemental Violation Report (R. 133), and in exchange the Government would move to dismiss Violations 1 and 2 as set forth in the December 1, 2017 Violation Report (R. 129). The parties further agreed on a recommended sentence of 18 months of incarceration with no new term of supervision to follow.

         Upon the parties' announcement that they reached an agreement, the undersigned explained to Defendant that while a recommendation of an appropriate sanction will be made to the presiding District Judge, it is ultimately Judge Bunning's decision as to the final sentence to be imposed. Defendant acknowledged his understanding and stated it was his desire to admit to the alleged violations as agreed by the parties. Specifically, Mr. Bancroft admitted under oath to the following violations of supervised release and the factual circumstances set forth below:

Violation No. 3:The defendant shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or administer any controlled substances or any paraphernalia related to any controlled substances, except as prescribed by a physician. (Grade C violation)

         A urine specimen collected on December 7, 2017, was reported by the laboratory as positive for methamphetamine. At final hearing, Defendant admitted that the United States could show by a preponderance of evidence that he used methamphetamine during this time period.

Violation No. 4:The defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime. (Grade B violation)

         Under Sixth Circuit precedent, Defendant's admitted use of methamphetamine also means that he was in possession of this controlled substance. United States v. Crace, 207 F.3d 833, 836 (6th Cir. 2000). Unlawful possession of this controlled substance constitutes conduct which violates 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) and, given Defendant's prior state drug convictions, subjects him to a penalty of not less than 90 days and not more than 3 years in prison, thereby constituting a Grade B violation pursuant to § 7B1.1(a)(2) of the Guidelines. See Id. Defendant admitted that his use of a controlled substance violated the condition of his supervision requiring him not to engage in new conduct that violates federal law.

         Following the Final Revocation Hearing, Defendant was remanded to custody, pending entry of a final judgment as to his supervised release violations. (R. 130). The undersigned is satisfied from the dialogue with the Defendant at the December 14, 2017 Final Revocation Hearing that he understands the nature of the violations as charged, he has had ample opportunity to consult with counsel, and that he enters his admissions to the violation charges knowingly and voluntarily. Based on Defendant's admissions to the violations discussed above, ...

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.