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.
426] filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram.
The Defendant, James Thomas Woods, is charged with six
violations of his supervised release conditions. Id.
at 2-4. These six violations fall into two general
categories: (i) prohibition on the use or possession of a
controlled substance; and (ii) committing another federal,
state or local crime. Id. Judgment was originally
entered against the Defendant on November 24, 2014, for
conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. Id. at 1.
He was originally sentenced to thirty-seven months followed
by a five-year term of supervised release. Id. Mr.
Woods began his first term of supervised release on June 28,
Woods had his initial supervised release revoked for
admitting to the use and possession of methamphetamine and
fentanyl. Id. These violations resulted in a
sentence of six month of imprisonment and five years of
supervised release. Id. The Defendant then began his
second term of supervised release on May 3, 2017.
eleven months later Mr. Woods again had his supervised
release revoke for confessing to the use of methamphetamine.
Id. at 2. This time he was given a sentence of nine
months imprisonment followed by twelve months of supervised
release. Id. Mr. Woods was released from custody on
December 27, 2018.
March 4, 2019, Woods was charged with violating six
conditions of his release. Id. All six violations
relate to his urine sample which tested positive for
buprenorphine, benzodiazepines (alprazolam, a.k.a. Xanax),
and methamphetamine. Id. After receiving the
positive result, Woods admitted to using all three substances
the previous day. Id. The admission of the use of
these drugs triggers a violation of the condition that Mr.
Woods not possess or unlawfully use controlled substance.
Id. Therefore, he had a Grade C violation for the
use of Suboxone, Xanax, and methamphetamine. Id.
Because use is the equivalent of possession, Mr. Woods
conduct also qualifies as a Class E Felony. This conduct
constitutes a Grade B violation.
final revocation hearing, held on March 18, 2019, Woods
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. 388.] On March 19, 2019, Magistrate
Judge Ingram issued a Recommended Disposition which
recommended revocation of Woods' supervised release and a
term of twelve months of imprisonment followed by no term of
supervised release. [R. 426.]
Ingram appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553
factors in coming to his recommended sentence. Judge Ingram
noted the nexus between Woods conviction for being involved
in a methamphetamine manufacturing conspiracy and his use of
the same drug, here. Id. at 6. Woods has a limited
criminal history, but this is his third revocation and his
continued use is a federal felony. Id. at 7.
Deterrence is especially important, here, where Woods'
drug addiction drove his underlying criminal conduct.
violations are also a serious breach of the Court's
trust. Id. The Defendant has violated the terms of
his release on multiple occasions. Id. In
recommending an above Guidelines term of imprisonment, Judge
Ingram highlighted Mr. Woods was informed that his sentence
would be increased if he violated again. Id. A
longer sentence of imprisonment is also necessary to
counterbalance the lack of supervised release. 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
Woods submitted a waiver of allocution. [R. 427.] 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. 372] as to
Defendant James Thomas Woods is ADOPTED as
and for the Opinion of the Court;
Defendant Woods 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 Disposition of the
Woods' Supervised Release is REVOKED;
Woods is SENTENCED to the Custody of the
Bureau of Prisons for a term of twelve months of
is RECOMMENDED that Woods be housed at the