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.
41] filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram.
The Defendant, Elizabeth Scisco, is charged with violating
the special condition of her revocation judgment that she be
placed in a Residential ReEntry Center for the six months
following her release from custody. Id. at 2.
Judgment was originally entered against the Defendant in
January 2010, after Ms. Scisco pleaded guilty to conspiracy
to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to
distribute methcathinone, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) & 846, and conspiracy to possess
and distribute pseudoephedrine, knowing it would be used to
manufacture methcathinone, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 846 and 841(c)(2). Id. at 1. She was
originally sentenced to seventy months of imprisonment
followed by a three-year term of supervised release.
Id. Ms. Scisco began her term of supervised release
on August 8, 2014. Id.
Scisco had her initial supervised release revoked for
admitting to the use and possession of buprenorphine,
oxycodone and morphine. Id. These violations
resulted in a sentence of fifteen months of imprisonment and
three years of supervised release. Id. Following the
Defendant's state charge for fourth-degree assault, the
Court added a condition requiring her to participate in
mental-health treatment at the direction and discretion of
the probation office. Id. at 2.
Scisco had her supervised release revoked for the second time
following her confession that she committed crime and failed
to report an arrest. Id. For these violations, she
was sentenced to sixteen months of imprisonment followed by
two-years of supervised release. Id. That revocation
judgment added the special condition that the Defendant be
placed in a residential re-entry center for a period of six
months upon her release from incarceration. Id.
December 17, 2018, Scisco was charged with one violation
based on her dismissal from the residential re-entry center.
Id. The Report alleges that she was dismissed from
the facility for texting sexually explicit photographs to
another resident. Id. at 3. The Report, also,
includes correspondence that shows several other disciplinary
reports filed against the Ms. Scisco since she began her
residency at the re-entry center. Id. Ms. Scisco
told the Probation Office that she had been removed from the
facility because she contacted a former resident and had
given her phone to another resident whose phone privileges
had been revoked. Being removed from the re-entry facility
would constitute a Grade C violation. Id.
final revocation hearing, held on February 25, 2019, Scisco
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. 40.] On
March 5, 2019, Magistrate Judge Ingram issued a Recommended
Disposition which recommended Scisco's supervised release
not be revoked and that she continues under supervised
release as currently set with the additional condition that
she serve eight consecutive weekends of intermittent
confinement. [R. 41 at 8.] Judge Ingram, also, recommended a
status conference with him after Ms. Scisco finishes her
intermittent confinement. Id.
Ingram appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553
factors in coming to his recommended sentence. Id.
at 5. Ms. Scisco has violated the terms of her supervised
release three times. Id. at 6. As she admits, she
needs to change her pattern of behavior. Ms. Scisco is
pregnant and has recently obtained new employment.
Id. As a result, intermittent weekend confinement
should be enough to change her behavior. Id.
are several specific reasons for a below Guidelines range
sentence. Id. at 7. While Ms. Scisco has continued
along her pattern of making wrong choices, her present
violation is less severe than others contemplated by the
Court. Id. The sentence given is enough to teach Ms.
Scisco that little decisions can still have big consequences.
Id. She has, also, already served a significant
amount of time in prison for conduct related to this case.
Id. Therefore, weekend confinement will prevent her
from making bad choices on the weekends and remind her of the
high cost related confinement. Id.
Scisco's violation is a serious breach of the Court's
trust. Id. The Defendant has violated the terms of
her release on multiple occasions. 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
Scisco submitted a waiver of allocution. [R. 42.] 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. 41] as to
Defendant Elizabeth Scisco is ADOPTED as and
for the Opinion of the Court;
Defendant Scisco is found to have violated the terms of her
Supervised Release as set forth in the Report filed by the
U.S. Probation Officer and the Recommended Disposition of the
Scisco's Supervised Release is NOT
Scisco is SENTENCED to serve eight