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. List

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

July 5, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF
v.
DANIEL LIST DEFENDANT

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          CANDACE J. SMITH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On May 25, 2018, this matter came before the Court for a hearing on Petition of the U.S. Probation Office (R. 1597) that Daniel List be summoned to appear before the Court and answer for alleged violation of his supervised release. Defendant was present in court and represented by Attorney Edward L. Metzger, III and the United States was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Wade Napier. U.S. Probation Officer John D'Alessandro was also present for this proceeding.

         Upon call of this matter at hearing, counsel informed the Court that the parties had reached an agreement on the pending violation. Specifically, Defendant agreed to admit to the violation as set forth in the May 11, 2018 Violation Report and, in exchange, the United States agreed to recommend that Defendant's supervision be modified such that he be removed from the Swift, Certain, and Fair program.

         For the reasons that follow, the parties' recommended disposition is appropriate. Accordingly, it will be recommended that Defendant's supervised release be modified to provide that he be removed from the Swift, Certain, and Fair program and that he be returned to regular supervision with its attendant standard and special conditions as imposed in the Judgment (R. 1027).

         I. Procedural Background

         On July 17, 2013, Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. (R. 721). On December 5, 2013, then presiding District Judge Amul Thapar sentenced Defendant to a 51-month term of imprisonment, followed by a 5-year term of supervised release. (R. 1026, 1027). On August 12, 2015, pursuant to the Court's own motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), Defendant's term of incarceration was reduced from 51 months to 41 months. (R. 1405). On July 1, 2016, Defendant was released from incarceration and began his term of supervised release. (R. 1604).

         On or about December 12, 2016, Defendant, by agreement, was placed in this Court's new Swift, Certain, and Fair supervised release program. (R. 1542; R. 1604). On February 10, 2017, Defendant was verbally admonished for failing to follow the instructions of his Probation Officer after he turned in his monthly report form late. (R. 1604). On February 14, 2017, Defendant was required to write a three-page letter to District Judge Thapar on the importance of following through with the instructions of his Probation Officer after Defendant failed to contact the child support office as instructed. (Id.). In addition, Defendant was ordered to serve a 1-day jail sanction for failure to pay child support. (R. 1545; R. 1604). On December 1, 2017, Defendant was ordered to serve a 1-day jail sanction after failing to follow the instructions of his Probation Officer by missing a urinalysis at Transitions, the treatment provider. (R. 1578; R. 1604).

         On May 11, 2018, U.S. Probation Officer Allison Biggs submitted a Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision, notifying now presiding District Judge David Bunning of a further violation of Defendant's participation in the Swift, Certain, and Fair program. Officer Biggs requested the issuance of a summons for Defendant to appear before the Court on the alleged violation. (R. 1597). District Judge Bunning ordered a summons be issued, and on May 25, 2018, Defendant appeared before the Court for hearing. (R. 1603). At that time, the undersigned explained to Defendant the statutory maximum terms of incarceration and supervised release as well as the applicable range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines if his supervision were to be revoked.[1] The undersigned also explained that while a recommendation of an appropriate sanction would be made to the presiding District Judge, ultimately it is the decision of District Judge Bunning as to what final sentence should be imposed.

         As noted above, at this hearing the parties informed the Court they had reached an agreement on the pending violation-Defendant agreed to admit to the violation in exchange for the Government's agreed recommendation to remove Defendant from the Swift, Certain, and Fair program as a modification to his supervised release. Specifically, Defendant admitted to the following violation of the Swift, Certain, and Fair program requirements as explained in the circumstances set forth below:

Violation No. 1:The defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer.

         Defendant was contacted by Transitions on May 10, 2018 and instructed to report for a urinalysis prior to 6:00 p.m. Defendant failed to timely report for his scheduled urinalysis. Defendant arrived at Transitions at 7:00 p.m. but was not permitted to submit to a urinalysis because a male staff member was not available to observe Defendant providing a urine sample. Defendant admitted that by failing to report to Transitions by 6:00 p.m. on May 10, he failed to follow the instructions of his Probation Officer.

         Based upon Defendant's admission to this violation, the undersigned finds, and will recommend that the District Judge find, that Defendant has violated this condition of the Swift, Certain, and Fair program. Defendant having admitted to violating this condition, the question of sentencing is presented.

         II. Sentencing

         The Court is mindful of the need to impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Id. ยง 3583(e). As previously discussed, Defendant, his counsel, and the Assistant United States Attorney reached an agreed recommendation of an appropriate sanction for Defendant's violation-that Defendant's supervised release be modified to remove him from the Swift, Certain, and Fair program and he be returned to regular supervised release, which release will be subject to all ...


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.