United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
GREGORY F.VAN TATENHOVE, JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. [R.
1206.] Defendant William Helbig, Jr. has been charged with
four violations of his terms of supervised release.
Id. at 2-3.
17, 2014, this Court sentenced Mr. Helbig to 87 months
imprisonment, followed by a four-year term of supervised
release. [R. 701.] In August 2015, Mr. Helbig's sentence
was reduced to 70 months imprisonment. [R. 708.] Mr. Helbig
was released and began his period of supervision on August
17, 2017. On April 30, 2018, the United States Probation
Office issued a Supervised Release Violation Report which
charged Mr. Helbig with four violations. The violation stem
from conduct that occurred following a random drug test.
Report alleges that, on April 13, 2019, U.S. Probation
Officer Scott Greiwe contacted Mr. Helbig to obtain a urine
specimen for drug testing. An instant testing device
indicated the presence of buprenorphine, and the sample was
sent to Alere Toxicology Services, Inc., for verification.
Mr. Helbig admitted to Officer Greiwe that he had been using
buprenorphine even during his incarceration. Officer Greiwe
told Mr. Helbig to report to the probation office on April
23, 2018 to discuss the test results.
Mr. Helbig did appear at the Probation Office on the
specified date, he did not comply with instructions. After
being asked to wait in the lobby, Mr. Helbig left the office.
Mr. Helbig's girlfriend, Cindy Hambrick, with whom he
lived, subsequently called Officer Greiwe to report that Mr.
Helbig had absconded. Days later, she turned over Mr.
Helbig's phone to Officer Greiwe. It contained text
messages Mr. Helbig sent to Ms. Hambrick indicating an intent
to flee because he was going to get “locked up.”
aforementioned conduct, the Report alleges that Mr. Helbig
committed four separate violations of his supervised release.
Specifically, Officer Greiwe stated that by using
buprenorphine, Mr. Helbig violated two conditions of
supervised release: that he refrain from possession
as well as use of any controlled substance except as
prescribed by a physician. [R. 1206 at 3.] Mr. Helbig
violated a third condition to “answer truthfully all
inquiries by the probation office and follow the instructions
of the probation officer” when he left the probation
office lobby on April 23, 2018 after being instructed to wait
for Officer Greiwe. Id. Fourth and finally, Mr.
Helbig violated the condition that he “shall notify the
probation officer at least ten days prior to any change in
residence or employment, ” because after leaving the
probation office lobby, for a period of time Mr. Helbig's
whereabouts and residence were unknown. Id.
his initial appearance before Magistrate Judge Hanly A.
Ingram on September 26, 2018, Mr. Helbig entered a knowing,
voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to a
preliminary hearing. [R. 1205.] The United States made a
motion for detention, and Mr. Helbig did not argue for
release. [R. 1206 at 4.] Judge Ingram determined that
detention was required. Id. On October 9, 2018,
Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram held a final revocation
hearing where Mr. Helbig competently entered a knowing,
voluntary, and intelligent stipulation to all alleged
violations set forth in Officer Greiwe's report. [R.
1205.] Subsequently, Judge Ingram prepared a Recommended
Disposition. [R. 1206.]
initial matter, Judge Ingram noted that revocation is
mandatory because Mr. Helbig was in possession of a
controlled substance. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1). Mr.
Helbig's admitted conduct qualifies as a Grade B
violation with respect to the second violation, and a Grade C
violation with respect to the first, third, and fourth
violations. [R. 1206 at 5.] With his criminal history of III
and a Grade B violation, Mr. Helbig's range under
the Revocation Table is 8-14 months. See U.S.S.G.
§ 7B1.1(b). At the final hearing, the parties jointly
recommended to the Court revocation with twelve months of
imprisonment, followed by three years supervised release. [R.
1206 at 4.]
Ingram considered the relevant §§ 3553 and 3583
factors and determined that by continuing to use unlawful
drugs, Mr. Helbig puts himself at risk for returning to the
same behavior that led to his underlying conviction,
conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. Id.
Further, while Judge Ingram appreciated that Mr. Helbig was
initially honest with Officer Greiwe when he confessed drug
use, he noted that Mr. Helbig's actions in absconding
from the Probation Office does not meet the Court's
expectations of people on supervised release. Id.
Mr. Helbig explained how fear and anxiety about returning to
prison led to him flee the probation office. Id. He
also stated that his completion of the Residential Drug Abuse
Program while previously incarcerated had positive effects on
him, in that it “gave him his life back” and
helped him to recognize the detrimental effect that drug
trafficking and drug use has on his community and his family.
Id. Nevertheless, as Judge Ingram noted, Mr. Helbig
continues to use controlled substances in ways that undo his
earlier progress. Id.
consideration of the nature and circumstances of Mr.
Helbig's conviction, as well as his history and
characteristics, Judge Ingram determined revocation
mandatory. [R. 1206 at 9.] Judge Ingram noted that the
primary wrong in the supervised release context is violation
of the Court's trust by the Defendant. Id. at 8.
Mr. Helbig's initial sentence was at the bottom of the
guidelines range, and he later received a reduction in that
sentence, indicating that the Court had placed substantial
trust in him. Id. at 8. Ultimately, Judge Ingram
recommended a term of imprisonment of twelve months, followed
by a three-year term of supervised release.
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 Ingram's Report and
Recommendation were filed within the appropriate time by
either party. Instead, Mr. Helbig has filed a waiver of
allocution. [R. 1208.]
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 Igram's
recommended disposition. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [R. 1206]
as to Defendant William Helbig, Jr., is
ADOPTED as and for ...