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 Hanly A. Ingram. [R.
436.] Defendant Ricky D. King has been charged with two
violations relating to his use of oxycodone. Id. at
January 26, 2012, this Court sentence Mr. King to seventy-two
months imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. [R.
270; R. 271.] He began his first term of supervised release
on March 6, 2015. [R. 436 at 1.] In August of 2015, Mr. King
admitted to violating his conditions of release by using
oxycodone, but the Court took no action upon recommendation
of the United States Probation Office (USPO). [R. 366.]
months later, Mr. King admitted to additional violations for
misuse of his prescription oxycodone. [R. 389.] This Court
revoked his supervision and sentenced him to four additional
months of incarceration. [R. 391; R. 392.] He began his
second term of supervised release on March 10, 2017. [R.
436.] However, only a few months later, he was admitted to
additional violations of his conditions of release, this time
for failure to notify the USPO within seventy-two hours of
receiving a prescription and for seeking medical treatment
and/or prescriptions outside Kentucky. [R. 409.] His release
was again revoked, and Mr. King was sentenced to thirteen
months incarceration. [R. 414; R. 415.] His third term of
supervised release began on July 24, 2018. [R. 436 at 2.]
to the Supervised Release Violation Report (the Report)
issued by USPO on September 7, 2018, Mr. King had informed
Probation Officer Derek Vonckx the pervious day that he would
be “dirty” if he was required to submit to a drug
screen, later admitting to using oxycodone on September 4,
2018. Id. At first, Mr. King represented that the
oxycodone he ingested that morning came from pills remaining
from a prescription filled during his previous term of
release, but later also admitted to using oxycodone on the
evening of September 4 that he had not been prescribed.
Id. at 2-3. A urine sample he provided tested
positive for oxycodone. Id. The Report charges Mr.
King with two violations of his conditions. First, because
Mr. King admitted to improperly using oxycodone he had
previously been prescribed, the Report alleges he violated
the condition of release prohibiting him from unlawful use of
a controlled substance, a Grade C Violation. Id. at
3. Additionally, because Mr. King admitted to using oxycodone
not prescribed to him, the Report alleges he violated the
condition of release prohibiting him from unlawfully
possessing a controlled substance,  a Grade B violation.
his initial appearance before Magistrate Judge Hanly A.
Ingram on January 9, 2019, Mr. King entered a knowing,
voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to a
preliminary hearing. [R. 433.] The United States moved for
interim detention, and he did not argue for release, so Judge
Ingram remanded him to United States Marshal custody.
Id. On January 16, 2019, Magistrate Judge Ingram
held a final revocation hearing where Mr. King entered a
knowing, voluntary, and intelligent stipulation to both
violations. [R. 435.] Subsequently, Judge Ingram prepared a
Recommended Disposition. [R. 436.]
Mr. King's criminal history category of V and a Grade B
violation,  Judge Ingram calculated his Guidelines
Range to be eighteen to twenty-four months. Id. at
5. At the final hearing, the United States argued for a term
of twenty-four months of imprisonment, while Mr. King
requested a sentence below the Guidelines Range. Id.
consideration of the nature and circumstances of Mr.
King's conviction, as well as history and
characteristics, Judge Ingram noted that revocation was
mandatory because Mr. King possessed a controlled substance.
Id. at 6; 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1). Ultimately,
Judge Ingram recommended a term of eighteen months
imprisonment with no additional supervised release. [R. 436
at 10.] As noted in the Recommendation, Mr. King has already
successfully completed the 500-hour Residential Drug Abuse
Program as well as the ninety-day inpatient substance abuse
treatment program. Id. at 7-8. While he would most
likely benefit from additional substance abuse treatment, no
additional treatment is available for the Court to provide
Mr. King. Id.
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. King has filed a waiver of
allocution. [R. 437.]
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. 436] as
to Defendant Ricky D. King is ADOPTED as and
for the Opinion of the Court;
2. Mr. King is found GUILTY of Violation #1
and Violation #2;
3. Mr. King's Supervised Release is
4. Mr. King is hereby sentenced to a term of incarceration of