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.
386] filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram.
The Defendant, William Wooten, is charged with five
violations of his supervised release conditions. Id.
at 2. The five violations include that he: twice committed
“another federal, state, or local crime;” failed
to “notify the probation officer within seventy-two
hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement
officer;” failed to “notify the probation officer
at least ten days prior to any change in residence or
employment;” and failed to have sufficient full-time
employment or adequately look for employment. Id. at
2-3. Judgment was originally entered against the Defendant in
January 22, 2015, after Wooten was found guilty on one count
for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. Id.
at 1. He was originally sentenced to twenty-four months
followed by a three-year term of supervised release.
Id. While in custody Wooten completed the
Residential Drug Abuse Program. Id. On July 6, 2016,
Wooten was released and began his term of supervision.
October 22, 2018, the United States Probation Office issued a
Supervised Release Violation Report which initiated these
proceedings. Id. This report initially alleged four
violations but was later given an addendum alleging a fifth
the Report complains that Wooten “commit[ted] another
federal, state or local crime.” Wooten violated this
condition when he pled guilty to Public Intoxication
Controlled Substance (Excludes Alcohol) and was given thirty
days of jail time. Id. at 2. This conduct would
constitute a Grade C violation. Id.
the Report alleges that Wooten failed to “notify the
probation officer within seventy-two hours of being arrested
or questioned by a law enforcement officer.”
Id. Failure to provide timely notice of such an
interaction is a Grade C violation. Id.
the Report alleged that the Defendant failed to “notify
the probation officer at least ten days prior to any change
in residence of reemployment.” Id. When the
Probation Officer traveled to the Defendants last report
residence, he was informed that Wooten had not lived there
for at least five months. Defendant's failure to notify
the probation office constitutes a Grade C violation.
the Report alleged a failure to notify the probation office
within ten days prior to any change in employment.
Id. When the Probation Officer contacted
Wooten's last reported place of employment, he was told
that Wooten had not worked there for at least the five
previous months. Id. at 3. Wooten's failure to
inform the probation office is a Grade C violation.
the Addendum to the Report alleges that Wooten again violated
the provision that he “not commit another federal,
state or local crime.” Id. For this violation,
the Addendum reports that the Defendant was arrested and
charged with a Class D felony for Receiving Stolen Property
Under $10, 000. Wooten was able to post $1, 000 cash bond and
released on October 30, 2018. This conduct constitutes a
Grade B violation. Id.
waived a formal hearing. Id. at 4. The Court found
Wooten to have 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. 385.] On March 8, 2019, Magistrate Judge Ingram
issued a Recommended Disposition which recommended revocation
of Wooten's supervised release and a term of six months
of imprisonment with an additional term of eighteen months
supervised release during which time he must live with his
grandmother unless the Court approves another residence in
advance. [R. 386 at 8.]
Ingram appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553
factors in coming to his recommended sentence. Id.
at 6. Wooten admission to using drugs and receiving stolen
property shows a willingness to engage in criminal conduct.
Id. Unfortunately, Wooten's substance abuse
problems have negatively affected his decision-making.
Id. But Wooten was able to abide by the terms of his
supervised release for the first two years. Id.
Judge Ingram found it credible that he will be able to get
back on track. Id. at 7.
need to deter criminal conduct weighs heavily in this case.
Id. Wooten's violations were criminal in nature
and had a direct impact on the public. Id.
Therefore, a term of imprisonment is necessary to achieve
specific and general deterrence. Id.
Wooten has returned to drug use, the RDAP was successful in
helping keep him clean for a couple of years. Id. An
additional term of supervision will help the probation office
determine and provide the treatment that Wooten needs.
Wooten's violations are also a serious breach of the
Court's trust. The Defendant has violated multiple terms
of his release. Unfortunately, these multiple breaches of
trust require a term of imprisonment of six months, not the
four months requested by the Defendant.
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
Wooten submitted a waiver of allocution. [R. 390.] 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. ...