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. Meget

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

August 27, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF
v.
JAMES KEVIN MEGET DEFENDANT

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Candace J. Smith, United States Magistrate Judge

         On June 5, 2018, this matter came before the Court for a Final Revocation Hearing on the United States Probation Office's Report that Defendant James Kevin Meget had violated conditions of his supervised release. Defendant was present in Court and represented by Attorney David Fessler and the United States was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Laura Voorhees. U.S. Probation Officer Allison Biggs was also present for this proceeding.

         At the final hearing, Defendant admitted to the charged violations. As discussed below, testimony was presented and the Court received evidence on the issue of sentencing. Thereafter, the matter was taken under submission by the undersigned for preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 3401(i). See also United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998). For the reasons that follow, it will be recommended that Defendant be found to have violated conditions of his supervised release, that his supervised release be revoked, and that he be sentenced to a term of 9 months of imprisonment, with a lifetime term of supervised release to follow.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Procedural History

         On June 3, 2005, Defendant James Kevin Meget pleaded guilty to knowingly possessing visual depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). (See R. 1; R. 17). On September 28, 2005, the presiding District Judge sentenced Mr. Meget to 120 months of imprisonment, followed by a lifetime term of supervised release. (See R. 25). In addition to the Standard Conditions of Supervision, Special Conditions of Supervision were included, as reflected in the Judgment. (See R. 25). Defendant served his term of incarceration and began his term of supervised release on January 9, 2014. (See R. 51). On January 23, 2014, the Court modified Defendant Meget's conditions of supervised release, with the agreement of Mr. Meget, to include the Eastern District of Kentucky's standard sex offender conditions. (See R. 31).

         On May 9, 2014, three months following his commencement of supervision, Defendant's supervised release was revoked after the Court found he violated the conditions of his release by viewing pornography, using a computer or other electronic device with access to an “on-line computer service” without the approval of the probation officer, and associating with a person engaged in criminal activity or with a person convicted of a felony without the permission of the probation officer. (Id.). As a result of the violations, Mr. Meget was sentenced to a 6-month term of imprisonment, followed by a lifetime term of supervised release. (R. 44).

         Defendant was subsequently released from custody, and on November 6, 2014, began his current term of supervised release. On November 27, 2017, Mr. Meget was permitted to obtain a cell phone capable of accessing the internet with the understanding that the phone would be monitored. (See R. 51). And on November 28, 2017, the Court modified Mr. Meget's conditions of supervised release to allow him to possess or use a device capable of creating pictures or videos, provided it is only utilized to capture images of structures, scenery, nature and animals. (R. 45).

         On April 27, 2018, U.S. Probation Officer Allison Biggs filed a Supervised Release Violation Petition and a Violation Report charging Defendant with violating conditions of his supervision. (R. 46; R. 51). Specifically, Officer Biggs reported that on April 16, 2018, she and U.S. Probation Officer Stacey Suter conducted an unannounced home visit due to the interruption of RemoteCom monitoring on Mr. Meget's permitted cell phone. (R. 51, at 2). With Defendant's permission, the officers took possession of the phone to perform a search. There were no violations observed on this phone. However, Officer Suter also located an additional, unauthorized phone during the home visit. The Violation Report indicated that initially Mr. Meget stated the phone belonged to his boyfriend, Larry. However, when Mr. Meget sent Larry a text message in the presence of the probation officers, it did not show up on the phone that allegedly belonged to Larry. Mr. Meget was questioned and stated he thought Larry had two phones but was not really sure to whom the phone belonged. Officer Biggs advised that she would take the phone to the probation office and requested that Larry contact the probation office if the phone belonged to him. The phone was subsequently searched with Larry's consent. (Id.). The Violation Report further asserted that the following day on April 17, 2018, Officer Suter met with Mr. Meget for the purpose of discussing this additional cell phone allegedly belonging to Larry. Mr. Meget once again stated that the phone belonged to Larry.

         On April 23, 2018, Mr. Meget reported to the probation office and met with Officer Biggs as well as Officer John D'Alessandro. The Violation Report asserts that Mr. Meget then admitted to Officers Biggs and D'Alessandro that he purchased the unauthorized cell phone at Walmart the previous year, before he was given permission by the Probation Office in November 2017 to obtain a cell phone capable of accessing the internet. (Id. at 3). Mr. Meget admitted to using the phone to access the internet and maps, and to look for and view pornography. (Id.). Mr. Meget further advised that he met his boyfriend, Larry, through a website he accessed on the phone. Mr. Meget advised that he gave this phone to Larry around November 2017. Mr. Meget denied viewing any child pornography. (Id.). The Violation Report further states that Mr. Meget told the probation officers that he would not search for child pornography, but would view it if it were presented to him. (Id.).

         Upon receipt of the report of U.S. Probation Officer Biggs, the presiding District Judge entered an Order for the issuance of a Summons and referred the matter to the undersigned for hearing and preparation of a Report and Recommendation (R. 46). Based upon the alleged conduct reported in the April 27, 2018 Violation Report, Defendant Meget stands before the Court charged with three violations:

Violation No. 1: The defendant shall not possess or use a computer or any electronic device with access to any “on-line computer service” at any location (including place of employment) without the prior written approval of the probation officer. This includes any Internet Service provider, bulletin board system, or any other public or private network or email system. (Grade C violation).
Violation No. 2: The defendant shall 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. (Grade C violation).

         The first alleged violation is based on Mr. Meget's April 23, 2018 statement to Officer Biggs and Officer D'Alessandro that he purchased a cell phone, without the knowledge or permission of the probation office, for the purpose of accessing the internet. The second alleged violation is based on Mr. Meget's statement that he utilized this unauthorized cell phone to go to locations on the internet for the purpose of viewing pornography.

Violation No. 3: The defendant shall participate in a program for treatment of mental health/sexual disorders; shall undergo a sex offender risk assessment, psychosexual evaluation and/or other evaluation as needed; shall be subject to periodic polygraph examinations and/or Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) testing, at the discretion and direction of the probation officer; and, shall follow the rules and regulations of the sex offender treatment program as implemented by the probation office. (Grade C violation).

         The third alleged violation asserts that Mr. Meget has been participating in sex offender treatment with Dr. Edward J. Connor since November 2014. Group sessions are held twice per month. At each group session, Mr. Meget is questioned as to whether he has viewed pornography, as well as whether he has been compliant with the terms of his supervision and the instructions of his probation officers. Based upon his April 23, 2018 statement to Officer Biggs and Officer D'Alessandro that he purchased and used the unauthorized cell phone to access the internet to look for and watch pornography, the third violation charges Defendant with failing to comply with the sex offender treatment program by not making truthful disclosures in treatment about this conduct.

         B. Final Hearing

         At the June 5, 2018 call of this matter for Final Revocation Hearing, counsel for Defendant informed the Court that Mr. Meget wished to admit to the violations as charged in the April 27, 2018 Violation Report (R. 51). As to the question of appropriate sanctions, Attorney Fessler indicated Defendant wished to present the testimony of his treating psychologist, Dr. Connor, concerning Defendant's treatment, to inform the Court's consideration in fashioning an appropriate sentence.

         1.Colloquy

         The undersigned explained to Defendant, inter alia, that there has been no decision made regarding an appropriate sanction if he admitted to the charged conduct. Furthermore, the undersigned explained that while a sentencing recommendation will be made, it is ultimately Judge Bunning's decision as to the final disposition of the charges and sentence to be imposed. Defendant acknowledged his understanding and stated it was his desire to admit to all three violations set forth in the April 27, 2018 Violation Report. ...


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.