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.
336.] Defendant Jeffrey Lee Lawson has been charged with four
violations of his terms of supervised release. Id.
October 2014, this Court sentenced Mr. Lawson to forty months
of incarceration followed by a three-year term of supervised
release. [R. 221.] In October 2015, Mr. Lawson's term of
imprisonment was reduced to thirty-two months. [R. 227.] Mr.
Lawson was released and began his term of supervision on
April 26, 2016. On March 19, 2019, the United States
Probation Office (“USPO”) issued a Supervised
Release Violation Report (“the Report”) charging
Mr. Lawson with four violations.
Report charged Mr. Lawson with (1) use of a controlled
substance other than as prescribed by a physician; (2)
possession of a controlled substance; (3) failure to notify
the probation office of a change in residence or employment;
and (4) violation of the condition that he not commit another
federal, state or local crime. More specifically, the Report
states that on March 6, 2019 Officer Greiwe contacted Mr.
Lawson's employer and place of residence. At that time,
Officer Greiwe learned that Mr. Lawson had been terminated
from employment and was not living at his stated address. Mr.
Lawson failed to notify probation of either his change in
employment status or place of residence. Officer Greiwe
conducted a home visit and learned from Mr. Lawson's
former girlfriend, Estelle Stanley, that she kicked Mr.
Lawson out of her home in September 2018. Ms. Stanley
informed Officer Greiwe that prior to a December 2018 home
visit, Mr. Lawson had broken into Ms. Stanley's home,
where he was supposed to be residing, and staged his clothes
in her closet in an effort to cover up his violation. Ms.
Stanley also told Officer Greiwe that Mr. Lawson had
threatened to kill her, and she had obtained an Emergency
Protective Order and warrant. Officer Greiwe contacted the
Whitley County Sheriff's office and confirmed there was
an active warrant for Mr. Lawson.
learning of the change in employment and residence, Officer
Greiwe directed Mr. Lawson to appear at the probation office
on March 8 to discuss possible violations. Mr. Lawson
submitted to a urine test which tested positive for oxycodone
and buprenorphine. The oxycodone was prescribed, but Mr.
Lawson did not have a prescription for buprenorphine.
Sometime after his appearance at the probation office, the
London Police Department served the active warrant on Mr.
Lawson and took him into custody. His case remains pending in
Whitley County District Court.
Marcy 28, 2019, Mr. Lawson appeared before Magistrate Judge
Hanly A. Ingram for his initial appearance pursuant to Rule
32.1 [R. 332.] During the hearing, Mr. Lawson made a knowing,
voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to a
preliminary hearing. Id. At that time, the United
States made an oral motion for detention, and Mr. Lawson did
not argue for release. Id. He was remanded to the
custody of the United States Marshal. The Court scheduled a
final revocation hearing for April 12, 2019. At his final
revocation hearing, Mr. Lawson knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently stipulated to the violations alleged in the
Report. Subsequently, Judge Ingram prepared a recommended
Lawson's admitted conduct qualifies as a Grade C
violation with respect to his use of buprenorphine.
Relatedly, the Sixth Circuit has held that use is equivalent
to possession. Buprenorphine is a Schedule III substance and
therefore simple possession of buprenorphine is a Class E
felony. This conduct is a Grade B violation. Failure to
notify probation of his change in residence and employment
constitutes a Grade C violation. Finally, Mr. Lawson violated
K.R.S § 508.080 when he “threatened to kill
Estella Stanley, her family, and the entire Williamsburg
Police Department.” This is also a Grade C violation.
criminal history category of III and a Grade B violation, the
parties agreed that Mr. Lawson's range under the
Revocation Table of Chapter 7 eight to fourteen months. The
parties presented a joint recommended sentence of eight
months of incarceration followed by six months of supervised
release. The parties based this recommendation on the fact
that Mr. Lawson's term of supervised release was set to
expire on April 27, 2019, and prior to the instant case he
had not violated in nearly three years. Mr. Lawson had been
known at work as a hard worker and had passed several drug
tests administered by his employer. The parties characterized
Mr. Lawson as a defendant who had done well on supervised
release who had simply relapsed in his drug addiction. The
parties stated their belief that Mr. Lawson had a high
likelihood of rehabilitation, as evidenced by his earlier
success on supervised release.
the parties' positions under advisement, Judge Ingram
considered the relevant §§ 3553 and 3583 factors in
order to determine an appropriate revocation term of
imprisonment. Id. As an initial matter, Judge Ingram
noted that revocation was mandatory in this case. Ultimately,
Judge Ingram recommended adopting the jointly recommended
penalty of eight months of incarceration followed by six
months of supervised release. Judge Ingram noted that the
nature and circumstances of the underlying conviction were
“alarming.” Mr. Lawson was caught selling pills
and manufacturing counterfeit currency. To avoid liability,
Mr. Lawson attempted to bribe law enforcement. However, Mr.
Lawson's history and characteristics include evidence
that he has performed well on supervised release in the past.
He was previously known as a hard worker before this recent
drug relapse, and he is regretful that he relapsed. Judge
Ingram found that an eight-month period of incarceration
balanced the need to protect the public and deter future
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 Stinnett's Report and
Recommendation were filed within the appropriate time by
either party. Instead, Mr. Lawson has filed a waiver of
allocution. [R. 340.]
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 Stinnett's
it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [R 336] as
to Defendant Jeffrey Lee Lawson is ADOPTED
as and for ...