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 Report and Recommendation
filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. [R.
22.] Defendant Patricia Ann Tasker has been charged with four
violations of her supervised release for unauthorized
possession of an iPhone and unauthorized contact with a
minor. Id. at 3-4.
November 2, 2011, District Judge William Nickerson of the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
sentenced Ms. Tasker to forty-two (42) months imprisonment
for possession of a visual depiction of a minor engaged in
sexually explicit conduct. [R. 1-3 at 1-3.] She began her
ten-year term of supervised release in the Eastern District
of Kentucky on January 16, 2015. [R. 22 at 1.] Shortly
thereafter, Ms. Tasker stipulated to violations of her
release by using a computer to create and maintain social
media accounts without permission from the United States
Probation Office (USPO). [R. 12 at 1-3.] This Court revoked
her supervised release and sentenced her to nine months of
imprisonment followed by 120 months of supervised release.
[R. 14; R. 15.] Ms. Tasker began her 120-month term of
supervised release on May 4, 2016. [R. 22 at 3.]
to the Supervised Release Violation Report (the Report)
issued by the USPO on April 17, 2018, Ms. Tasker admitted to
her probation officer that she had an unauthorized iPhone.
Id. She further admitted to accessing the internet
on four separate unauthorized smart phones, as well as
participating in unauthorized contact with several minor
children. Id. She relinquished the iPhone to USPO,
where forensic analysis revealed Ms. Tasker had accessed
websites containing pornographic material on numerous
occasions between December 14, 2017, and April 11, 2018.
Id. She also used the phone to take videos and
photos, though none contained pornography or minors.
Id. The Report charges Ms. Tasker with four
violations of her supervised release. Violation #1, a Grade C
Violation, charges her with violating the special condition
prohibiting her from the use of “computer systems,
Internet-capable devices and/or similar electronic devices .
. . without the prior approval of the [USPO, ]” and
prohibits her from possession or use of “a computer or
any electronic device with access to any ‘on-line
computer service'” without first securing USPO
approval. Id. Violation #2 charges Ms. Tasker with
violating her special condition forbidding her from using or
possessing “a device capable of creating pictures or
video” without USPO approval, another Grade C
Violation. Id. Violation #3 charges her with
violating the special condition barring her from having any
“verbal, written, telephonic, or electronic
communication with any person under the age of 18 without the
permission of the probation officer, ” a Grade C
Violation. Id. at 3-4. Finally, Violation #4 charges
her with violating her special condition that she “not
possess, view, listen to, or go to locations where any form
of pornography, sexually stimulating performances, or
sexually oriented material, items, or services are available,
” another Grade C Violation. Id. at 4.
her initial appearance before Magistrate Judge Hanly A.
Ingram on May 22, 2018, the United States moved for interim
detention. Id. Ms. Tasker did not object and Judge
Ingram found detention appropriate. [R. 20.] On May 31, 2018,
Judge Ingram held a final revocation hearing, where Ms.
Tasker competently entered a knowing, voluntary, and
intelligent stipulation to Violations #1, #2, and #3. [R.
21.] The United States moved to dismiss Violation #4.
Id. Subsequently, Judge Ingram prepared a Report and
Recommendation, which evaluates the relevant 18 U.S.C. §
Ms. Tasker's criminal history category of I and a Grade C
violation,  Judge Ingram calculated her Guidelines
Range to be three (3) to nine (9) months. [R. 22 at 5.] The
parties agreed to a recommendation of a 120-month additional
term of supervised release, but disagreed on a term of
imprisonment. Id. The Government argued for twelve
months of imprisonment, above the Guidelines Range.
Id. The United States noted that this was not Ms.
Tasker's first violation, and that in her underlying
offense, she had used a computer to create the child
pornography she was convicted for possessing. Id. at
5-6. According to the Government, Ms. Tasker's repeated
use of unauthorized devices suggests a danger to the
community and a need to protect the public from future
conduct. Id. at 6. Furthermore, the United States
indicated Ms. Tasker has received leniency in the past,
receiving an original sentence of forty-two (42) months when
her Guidelines Range was 120 months. Id. Because she
abused the Government's trust, and because she only
admitted to the conduct upon facing a polygraph examination,
the United States argued an upward departure is appropriate.
Id. at 6-7. Defense counsel argued for a sentence
within the Guidelines Range, or alternatively, a sentence of
twelve months plus one day imprisonment so that Ms. Tasker
could earn good time and potentially early release.
Id. at 7. According to her attorney, Ms. Tasker has
been attending mental health counseling, and her history of
trauma and mental health conditions are mitigating
circumstances. Id. Furthermore, defense counsel
maintained that her admission to the violation conduct
outweighed any potential danger to the public or need for
consideration of the nature and circumstances of Ms.
Tasker's conviction, as well as her history and
characteristics, Judge Ingram found revocation to be
appropriate in this case. Id. at 8. Ms. Tasker's
underlying conviction creates a significant risk of danger to
the public, and her continuous breaches of the Court's
trust demonstrates that she remains a danger to the public.
Id. at 7-8. Furthermore, while she maintained a
USPO-monitored computer, she chose to commit violations on
the unauthorized devices she possessed, showing that Ms.
Tasker understood the consequences of her actions.
Id. at 8.
addition to revocation, Judge Ingram believes an upward
departure from the Guidelines Range is appropriate.
Id. at 8-9. Accordingly, in his recommendation, he
provides a lengthy explanation, considering “the extent
of the deviation” and ensuring “the justification
is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of
variance.” United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d
195, 205 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)). Judge Ingram believes
that Ms. Tasker's consistent breaches of the Court's
trust justify such a sentence. [R. 22 at 9.] The Court
previously warned Ms. Tasker, upon her prior revocation of
release, that future dishonesty would result in a harsher
punishment. [R. 12 at 7-8.] However, Ms. Tasker continues
using unauthorized devices. Judge Ingram further indicated
that the sentence requested by defense counsel, incarceration
of twelve months and one day, is inappropriate, as Ms. Tasker
has not yet demonstrated compliance with her imposed
conditions. [R. 22 at 9.] Accordingly, Judge Ingram
recommended twelve months of imprisonment followed by
re-imposition of her 120-month term of supervised release.
Id. at 9-10.
to Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
Report and Recommendation advises the parties that objections
must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service.
Id. at 16; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No. objections to Judge Ingram's Report and
Recommendation were filed within the appropriate time by
either party. Instead, Ms. Tasker has filed a waiver of
allocution. [R. 23.]
this Court must make a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). But when
no objections are made, as in this case, the Court is not
required to “review . . . a magistrate's factual or
legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other
standard.” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate
judge'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, the Court has
examined the record and agrees with Judge Ingram's
recommended disposition. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
Report and Recommendation [R. 22] as to
Defendant Patricia Tasker, is ADOPTED as and
for the Opinion of the Court;
Tasker is found GUILTY of Violation #1,
Violation #2, and Violation #3;
Tasker's Supervised Release is REVOKED;
Tasker is hereby sentenced to twelve (12) ...