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 Recommended Disposition [R.
74] filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram.
The Defendant, Jeffery Steven Pratt, is charged with two
violations of his supervised release conditions. Id.
at 2. The two violations allege that he unlawfully used a
controlled substance and that he committed “another
federal, state, or local crime.” Id. Judgment
was originally entered against the Defendant in January 11,
2012, after Mr. Pratt was found guilty on one count
possession with the intent to distribute oxycodone.
Id. at 1. He was originally sentenced to 57 months
followed by a three-year term of supervised release.
Id. Mr. Pratt began his term of supervised release
on February 20, 2015. Id.
March 2017, the Defendant had his supervised release revoked
for the first time after he was found guilty of using and
possessing marijuana. Id. at 1. This resulted in the
Defendant being sentenced to nine months of imprisonment and
two-years of supervised release. Id.
September 2017, Pratt was again released and began his
additional term of supervision.
October 2, 2018, the United States Probation Office issued a
Supervised Release Violation Report which initiated these
proceedings. Id. This report alleged two violations.
Report first complains that Mr. Pratt unlawfully used a
controlled substance. Id. at 2. As the basis for
this violation, the Report alleges that the Defendant
provided a urine sample that tested positive for amphetamine
and methamphetamine. Id. Mr. Pratt confessed to his
probation officer that he took Adipex and methamphetamine.
Id. Mr. Pratt does not have a prescription for
amphetamines. Id. This conduct would constitute a
Grade B violation. Id.
Report goes on to allege that Mr. Pratt positive drug test
and confession have triggered a violation of his agreement
“not [to] commit another federal, state or local
crime.” Id. Because of Mr. Pratt's prior
drug conviction, use is the same as possession. Therefore,
his confession and positive drug test would be a Class E
Felony. Id. This conduct constitutes a Grade C
final revocation hearing, held on March 8, 2019, Mr. Pratt
competently entered a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent
stipulation to all violations that had been charged by the
USPO in the Supervised Release Violation Report. [R. 74.] On
March 13, 2019, Magistrate Judge Ingram issued a Recommended
Disposition which recommended revocation of Mr. Pratt's
supervised release and a term of twelve months and one day of
imprisonment with a one-year term of supervised release.
Id. at 8.
Ingram appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553
factors in coming to his recommended sentence. Id.
at 5. Mr. Pratt's use of drugs is linked closely with the
circumstances of his underlying offense. Id. at 6.
His continued association with individuals who use or deal in
illegal substances puts him at risk of making poor choices
and additional criminal conduct. Id.
Pratt has suffered personal tragedy and that remains a
mitigating factor. Id. He also suffers from serious
medical issues. Id. But rather than seek appropriate
professional treatment, he continues to use drugs to
self-medicate. Id. The Court needs to deter such
criminal conduct because it puts both Mr. Pratt and the
community at risk. Id.
Pratt's self-medication is also why this Court recommends
that Mr. Pratt be referred for an evaluation for
substance-abuse and mental-health treatment after he is
released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
Id. At 7.
Mr. Pratt's violations are also a serious breach of the
Court's trust. The Defendant has been revoked before and
this violation is more serious than his last. Mr. Pratt needs
to follow the rules imposed by his supervision.
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
Pratt submitted a waiver of allocution. [R. 75.] 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:
Recommended Disposition [R. 74] as to
Defendant Jeffery Steven Pratt is ADOPTED as