United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
A. Ingram United States Magistrate Judge.
referral from District Judge Van Tatenhove, the Court
considers reported violations of supervised release by
Defendant Rodney Adams. See D.E. 386. Former Chief
Judge Coffman entered a judgment against Defendant on
February 7, 2002, following his guilty plea to violating 21
U.S.C. § 846, conspiracy to possess with the intent to
distribute, and distribution of, more than 1, 000 kilograms
of marijuana, and to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h),
conspiracy to commit laundering of monetary instruments. D.E.
355. Defendant was originally sentenced to 210 months of
imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release.
Id. On July 25, 2016, Defendant was released from
the custody of the Bureau Prisons to begin his term of
November 2017, Defendant's term of supervised release was
revoked due to his use of alcohol, failure to follow the
instructions of his probation officer, and failure to submit
to drug testing. See D.E. 382. At that time, he was
sentenced to seven months of imprisonment, with four years of
supervised release to follow. D.E. 385 at 2-3. On May 15,
2018, Defendant began his second term of supervised release.
August 6, 2018, the United States Probation Office
(“USPO”) issued a Supervised Release Violation
Report (“the Report”) charging Defendant with two
violations. The USPO then secured a warrant from District
Judge Van Tatenhove on August 9, 2018. See D.E. 386;
to the Report, on August 4, 2018, Defendant was arrested by
the Somerset (Kentucky) Police Department and charged with:
failure to/or improper signal, in violation of KRS §
189.380; careless driving, in violation of KRS §
189.290; and operating a motor vehicle under the influence of
alcohol/drugs, 1st offense, in violation of KRS §
189A.010(5A). Defendant was released on bond on August 5, and
his arraignment was scheduled for August 27. Based on this
conduct, the Report alleges that Defendant violated the
condition of his release that states he “must not
commit another federal, state or local crime.” This is
a Grade C violation. See U.S.S.G. §
Report also states that Defendant told his probation officer
that he had consumed bourbon prior to operating the vehicle,
but he believed he was under the legal limit. On that basis,
the Report alleges that Defendant violated the condition of
his release that states he “must abstain from the use
of alcohol.” This is also a Grade C violation. See
Judge Atkins conducted Defendant's initial appearance
pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 on August
22, 2018. D.E. 389. During the hearing, Defendant made a
knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to a
preliminary hearing. Id. At that time, the United
States made an oral motion for detention. Id. Based
on the heavy defense burden under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a),
the Court found that Defendant failed to carry his release
burden and that detention was required. Id.
final hearing on November 13, 2018, Defendant was afforded
all rights under Rule 32.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3583. D.E.
399. Defendant waived a formal hearing and stipulated to the
violations set forth in the Report. Id. The Court
found Defendant competently stipulated to the violations and
that the stipulation was knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently made. Id. The Court also found the
stipulation to be consistent with the advice of
Defendant's counsel. Id.
course, the Court must find “by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant violated a condition of
supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3);
see also United States v. Cofield, 233 F.3d 405, 406
(6th Cir. 2000) (“In order to revoke supervised
release, the sentencing court must find by a preponderance of
the evidence that a defendant has violated a condition of his
supervised release.”). Defendant's stipulation
permits the Court to find that he engaged in conduct that
constitutes Grade C violations under the Guidelines.
See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(3).
on Defendant's stipulation, the government agreed to not
recommend a sentence outside of the advisory Guidelines
range. Instead, the government recommended a sentence of
eleven months, which is at the top end of the Guidelines
range, to be followed by four years of supervised release.
Defense counsel did not oppose the government's request
for four years of supervision. However, concerning a term of
imprisonment, defense counsel asked for a sentence at the
bottom of the Guidelines range.
Court has reviewed the entire record, including the Report
and its accompanying documents, and the sentencing materials
underlying Defendant's original judgment. The Court has
also considered all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
imported into the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) analysis. Through
that consideration, the Court will recommend that
Defendant's supervision be ...