United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division
GREGORY F. VAN TATENHOVE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition [R.
372] filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram.
The Defendant, Leslie Cornett, is charged with five
violations of his supervised release conditions. Id.
at 2-4. These five violations fall into three general
categories: (i) failure to follow the instructions of his
probation officer; (ii) admission to use of methamphetamine;
and (iii) trafficking of a controlled substance. Id.
Judgment was originally entered against the Defendant on
January 22, 2015, for conspiracy to manufacture a mixture
containing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Id. at 1. He was
originally sentenced to thirty-two months followed by a
three-year term of supervised release. Id. Mr.
Cornett began his term of supervised release on October 7,
Cornett had his initial supervised release revoked for the
violations of commission of a crime, failure to report an
arrest to the United States Probation Office, and failure to
report to the USPO. Id. These violations resulted in
a sentence of six month of imprisonment and two years of
supervised release. Id. The Defendant then began his
second term of supervised release on August 22, 2018.
thereafter, on September 18, 2018, Cornett was charged with
violating two conditions of his release. Id. at 2.
Then, on October 1, he was charged with two additional
violations of his supervised release. Id. Finally,
on October 15, a Second Addendum charged Cornett with a fifth
initial two violations are similar. In both instances Cornett
failed to follow the instructions of his Probation officer.
Within 72-hours of his release from custody Cornett was
required to report to the USPO. Instead, Cornett waited 120
hours to meet with an officer. Id. This constitutes
a Grace C violation. Cornett's second failure to follow
instructions when he, again, failed to timely report to his
probation officer after his initial appearance. Id.
Indeed, after explaining that he had car trouble and would
not be able to report, Officer Armstrong attempted to reach
Cornett. Id. at 3. However, all of Officer
Armstrong's attempts were futile. Id. In the
end, Cornett failed to show up at the designated time. Like
the first violation, this is a Grade C violation.
third and fourth violations stem from his admission to using
methamphetamine. Id. As a condition of his release
Cornett agreed to “refrain from any unlawful use of a
controlled substance.” Id. However, after his
release, Cornett admitted to using methamphetamine.
Id. This too was a Grade C violation. This admission
also triggered a violation of a second mandatory condition
that he “not unlawfully possess a controlled substance,
” because Sixth Circuit precedent construes use as the
equivalent of possession.
Cornett was charged by a grand jury with trafficking in a
controlled substance, first degree. Id. As with the
fourth violation, this violates the condition that he
“not commit another federal, state, or local crime, and
that he must not unlawfully possess a controlled
substance.” Id. at 4. This conduct would
constitute a Grade A violation but was dismissed on the
Government's motion. Id. at 10.
final revocation hearing, held on November 29, 2018, Cornett
competently entered a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent
stipulation to the first four violations that had been
charged by the USPO in the Supervised Release Violation
Report and Addendum. [R. 371.] On December 5, 2018,
Magistrate Judge Ingram issued a Recommended Disposition
which recommended revocation of Cornett's supervised
release and a term of nine months of imprisonment followed by
a one-year term of supervised release. [R. 372.]
Ingram appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553
factors in coming to his recommended sentence. Judge Ingram
began by noting the nexus between Cornett's conviction
for manufacturing a mixture containing methamphetamine and
confessing to continued use of the same drug. Id. at
6. While Cornett's honesty with his Probation Officer and
forthrightness with the Court are mitigating factors, its
effect is diminished by his failure to follow the directions
given to him by the USPO. Id. at 8.
Ingram also reiterated the need to deter criminal conduct.
This factor counseled in favor of an additional term of
supervision because methamphetamine is only procured through
illegal means. Id. at 8. Continued use puts him and
the general public at increased risk of injury or death.
Id. at 9. The additional term of supervision should
help prevent Cornett from continued criminal behavior or
increase the likelihood that he is caught if he does continue
to violate the law. Id. Sadly, Cornett's
continued use of methamphetamine also speaks to an addiction.
To help him combat this addiction, the Court recommends that
as a condition of his supervised release that he complete a
term of mandatory inpatient drug treatment at the facility of
the USPO's choosing. Id.
recommending a lengthier term of imprisonment, Judge Ingram
highlighted the he previously received a middle of the
advisory Guidelines range sentence for his first supervisory
release violation. Id. A second violation warrants a
longer prison sentence. Id. This necessity is made
clear by the fact that the primary wrong committed by Cornett
was the violation of the Court's trust. Id. at
10. Cornett must learn that he must respect the Court and the
USPO or he will face harsh consequences. Id.
to Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
Recommended Disposition further advises the parties that
objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of
service. Id. at 9. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). No. objections have been filed, and Defendant
Cornett submitted a waiver of allocution. [R. 376.]
Generally, this Court must make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Recommended
Disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, as in this case,
this 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,
this Court has examined the record and agrees with Magistrate
Judge Ingram's Recommended Disposition. Accordingly, and
the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommended Disposition [R. 372] as
to Defendant Leslie Cornett is ADOPTED as
and for the Opinion of the Court;
2. Defendant Cornett is found to have violated the terms of
his Supervised Release as set forth in the Report filed by
the U.S. Probation Officer and the Recommended ...