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 J. Gregory Wehrman.
[R. 961.] Defendant Thomas Raymond Engle has been charged
with four violations of his supervised release related to his
substance abuse. Id. at 2-4.
October 10, 2012, this Court sentenced Mr. Engle to
fifty-four months imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine, conspiracy to retaliate against a government
witness, and retaliation against a government witness. [R.
627.] He began his first three-year term of supervised
release on May 29, 2015. [R. 961 at 1.] On May 11, 2017, Mr.
Engle entered a guilty plea for seven violations of his
supervised release for substance abuse. [R. 908; R. 910.] For
these charges, the Court sentenced him to an additional eight
months imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
to the Supervised Release Violation Report (the Report)
issued by the United States Probation Office (USPO) on July
26, 2018, Mr. Engle was arrested in Barbourville, Kentucky on
July 22, 2018, for failure to appear for arraignment before
Laurel County District Court. [R. 961 at 2.] Upon arrest, Mr.
Engle was found to have Gabapentin pills in his possession
and was charged in Knox County for possession of a controlled
substance in violation of KRS § 217.182(7). Id.
The Report charges Mr. Engle with Violation #1, a Grade C
violation, for violating the conditions of his release
prohibiting him from unlawful possession of a controlled
substance and from committing another state, local, or
federal crime. Id.
August 10, 2018, USPO issued an Addendum to the Report.
Id. According to the Addendum, he reported to USPO
on July 25 to discuss this arrest and provided a urine
sample. Id. at 3. Though Mr. Engle denied using
controlled substances, toxicology testing indicated positive
results for Gabapentin in his sample. Id. The
Addendum charges Mr. Engle with three additional violations.
Id. Violation #2, a Grade C violation, is based on
Mr. Engle's unlawful use of a controlled substance in
violation of his conditions of release. Id.
Violation #3, a Grade C violation, charges Mr. Engle with
violating conditions prohibiting him from committing another
crime and prohibiting him from unlawfully possessing a
controlled substance. Id. Violation #4, another
Grade C violation, charges Mr. Engle with violating a
condition that he “must answer truthfully”
questions posed by a probation officer for lying to the USPO
about his drug usage. Id.
his initial appearance before Magistrate Judge Atkins on
August 23, 2018, Mr. Engle entered a knowing, voluntary, and
intelligent waiver of his right to a preliminary hearing. [R.
959.] The United States moved for interim detention, and Mr.
Engle did not argue for release. Id. Judge Atkins
determined that Mr. Engle did not meet the heavy defense
burden under § 3143(a) to justify release, and he
remanded Mr. Engle to the custody of the United States
Marshal. Id. On August 27, 2018, Magistrate Judge J.
Gregory Wehrman held a final revocation hearing where Mr.
Engle competently entered a knowing, voluntary, and
intelligent stipulation to Violations #1, #2, #3, and #4. [R.
initial matter, Judge Wehrman noted that revocation is
mandatory because Mr. Engle was in possession of a controlled
substance. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1). With Mr. Engle's
criminal history category of III and a Grade C violation,
Judge Wehrman calculated his Guidelines Range to be five to
eleven months. [R. 961 at 4-5.] The Government argued for
nine months imprisonment followed by three years of
supervised release. Id. at 5. According to the
Government, that sentence would be appropriate because this
is Mr. Engle's second revocation related to his substance
abuse, he lied to the USPO about his using drugs, and there
is a need to protect the public from such substance abuse.
Id. at 5-6. However, the Government did note that
his guilty plea was mitigating. Id. Counsel for Mr.
Engle argued that this revocation was less serious than his
last revocation because these violations were Grade C instead
of Grade B. Id. at 6. Defense requested a longer
term of imprisonment, eleven months, but a shorter term of
supervised release, twelve months. Id. Mr. Engle
address the Court and conveyed his desire to put the incident
behind him. Id.
consideration of the nature and circumstances of Mr.
Engle's conviction, as well as his history and
characteristics, Judge Wehrman determined revocation
mandatory. Id. at 6-7. Judge Wehrman noted Mr.
Engle's underlying offenses and subsequent violations of
release all stemmed from his substance abuse. Id.
Particularly, his underlying offenses were particularly
violent and inherently endanger the community. Id.
at 7. Further, Judge Wehrman stressed that lying to the USPO
is a significant breach of the Court's trust.
Id. Ultimately, Judge Wehrman recommended ten months
incarceration, followed by two years of supervised release.
Id. at 8.
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 Wehrman's Report and
Recommendation were filed within the appropriate time by
either party. Instead, Mr. Engle has filed a waiver of
allocution and indicated no objection to the Recommendation.
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:
1. The Report and Recommendation [R. 961] as
to Defendant Thomas Raymond Engle, is
ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court;
2. Mr. Engle is found GUILTY of Violations
#1, #2, #3, and #4;
3. Mr. Engle's Supervised Release is
4. Mr. Engle is hereby sentenced to a term of incarceration
of te ...