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 Candace J. Smith. [R.
51.] Defendant Isaac Jackson has been charged with two
violations related to his use of methamphetamine.
Id. at 2.
November 13, 2014, this Court sentenced Mr. Jackson to
thirty-six months imprisonment for being a felon in
possession of a firearm. [R. 40.] He began his three-year
term of supervised release on December 8, 2017. [R. 44-2.]
to the Supervised Release Violation Report (the Report)
issued by the United States Probation Office (USPO) on August
10, 2018, Mr. Jackson submitted a urine sample on July 25,
2018, that ultimately tested positive for methamphetamine.
[R. 44-2 at 2.] The Report charges Mr. Jackson with Violation
#1, a Grade C Violation, for violating Standard Condition
Number 7, which prohibits him from excessive use of alcohol
and illegal use of controlled substances. Id.
Because a positive indication of the use of methamphetamine
constitutes possession of methamphetamine in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 844(a), a Class E Felony, the Report also
charges Mr. Jackson with Violation #2, a Grade B Violation,
for committing another federal, state, or local crime.
Id. at 2-3.
his initial appearance before Magistrate Judge J. Gregory
Wehrman on August 27, 2018, Mr. Jackson entered a knowing,
voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to a
preliminary hearing. [R. 47.] The United States moved for
interim detention and Mr. Jackson did not argue for release.
Id. Judge Wehrman determined that Mr. Jackson did
not meet the heavy defense burden under 18 U.S.C. §
3143(a) to justify release, and he remanded Mr. Jackson to
the custody of the United States Marshal. Id. On
September 5, 2018, Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith held a
final revocation hearing where Mr. Jackson competently
entered a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent stipulation to
Violations #1 and #2. [R. 50.] Judge Smith then prepared a
Report and Recommendation. [R. 51.]
initial matter, Judge Smith noted that revocation is
mandatory because Mr. Jackson was in possession of a
controlled substance. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1). With Mr.
Jackson's criminal history category of V and a Grade B
violation,  Judge Smith calculated his Guidelines
Range to be eighteen to twenty-four months. [R. 51 at 3.] At
the final hearing, the Government and Mr. Jackson jointly
proposed the Court sentence Mr. Jackson to time served
followed by placement in an inpatient drug addiction
treatment program. Id. at 4. Counsel for Mr. Jackson
has already arranged for his placement at Lake Hills Oasis,
an addiction recovery facility, and the recommendation by the
parties would require Mr. Jackson to remain in custody until
space opens at Lake Hills Oasis. Id. Mr.
Jackson's conditions of release would then require him to
complete both Phase One (a thirty-day program) and Phase Two
(at least a ninety-day program) of treatment at Lake Hills
Oasis. Id. Mr. Jackson and his family intends to pay
Government believes this arrangement is appropriate because
Mr. Jackson has been proactive in finding treatment for his
substance abuse, and success at the facility is likely for
him. Id. Further, the Government believes treatment
affords him the best opportunity of compliance with his
supervised release. Id. Counsel for Mr. Jackson
agreed, stating this recent violation was a relapse for him
and he recognizes he needs help. Id. at 4-5.
consideration of the nature and circumstances of Mr.
Jackson's conviction, as well as his history and
characteristics, Judge Smith determined revocation mandatory.
Id. at 3. Judge Smith noted Mr. Jackson's
willingness to get treatment and found the recommendation
from the parties to be appropriate. Id. at 5-7.
Ultimately, Judge Smith recommended a term of imprisonment of
time served, followed by thirty-five months of supervised
release, with the added condition he complete Phase One and
Phase Two of treatment at Lake Hills Oasis. Id. at
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 Smith's Report and Recommendation
were filed within the appropriate time by either party.
Instead, Mr. Jackson has filed a waiver of allocution and
indicated no objection to the Recommendation. [R. 52.]
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 Smith's
recommended disposition. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [R. 51] as
to Defendant Isaac Jackson, is ADOPTED as
and for the Opinion of the Court;
2. Mr. Jackson is found GUILTY of Violations
#1 and #2;
3. Mr. Jackson's Supervised Release is
4. Mr. Jackson is hereby sentenced to a term of incarceration