Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. McQueen

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London

June 14, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
BRYAN H. McQUEEN, Defendant.

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION AND ORDER

          Hanly A. Ingram, United States Magistrate Judge

         The Court, on referral, considers reported supervised release violations by Defendant Bryan McQueen. See D.E. 676 at 2. District Judge Van Tatenhove entered a judgment against Defendant in September 2012, following Defendant's guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute a quantity of pills containing oxycodone. D.E. 429. Defendant was originally sentenced to fifty-one months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release, id. at 2-3, and his term of imprisonment was later reduced to forty-two months, see Docket Entry 550. Defendant was first released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) in October 2015.

         In February 2016, the United States Probation Office (“USPO”) submitted a Report on Offender Under Supervision (12A) to Judge Van Tatenhove requesting that no action be taken against Defendant after he admitted to using methamphetamine. See D.E. 570. At that time, Defendant's probation officer recommended that Defendant attend bimonthly outpatient substance-abuse counseling. Id. at 1. Judge Van Tatenhove approved that request. Id. at 2.

         In September 2016, Defendant's supervised release was revoked for his use of methamphetamine and the associated criminal conduct of possession of the drug. See D.E. 589; D.E. 592. For that revocation, Defendant was sentenced to twelve months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. D.E. 593 at 2-3. In September 2017, Defendant was released from BOP custody, and upon his release, he expressed a desire to relocate to Fayette County, Kentucky. Therefore, the USPO in Lexington, Kentucky, began to supervise Defendant.

         In October 2017, a Report on Offender Under Supervision (12A) was submitted to Judge Van Tatenhove outlining Defendant's failure to truthfully answer inquiries and follow the directions of his probation officer. See D.E. 645 at 1. Judge Van Tatenhove approved that no action be taken against Defendant for that noncompliance. Id. at 2.

         In January 2018, Defendant's term of supervision was again revoked following his use of methamphetamine and the associated criminal conduct of possession of the drug. See D.E. 654; D.E. 657. For those violations, Defendant was sentenced to fourteen months of imprisonment followed by one year of supervised release. D.E. 658 at 2-3. That revocation judgment also included the special condition that, following his release from custody, Defendant participate in a six-month halfway house program selected by the USPO. Id. at 5.

         In February 2019, Defendant was again released from BOP custody to begin service on his term of supervision. At that time, he entered the Dismas Charities halfway house program in Lexington, Kentucky.

         I.

         On May 29, 2019, the USPO issued a Supervised Release Violation Report (“the Report”) charging Defendant with three violations. The USPO then secured a warrant for Defendant's arrest from Judge Van Tatenhove. See D.E. 676 at 2; D.E. 681. On June 4, 2019, the USPO issued an Addendum to the Report charging Defendant with a fourth violation.

         First, the Report states that, on May 18, 2019, Dismas Charities staff collected a urine specimen from Defendant, which was sent to Alere Toxicology for testing. On May 26, the specimen was returned from the laboratory and determined to be “substituted” and “not consistent with normal human urine.” Based on this conduct, the Report alleges that Defendant violated the condition of his supervised release that states: “You must refrain from obstructing or attempting to obstruct or tamper, in any fashion, with the efficiency and accuracy of any prohibited substance abuse testing, which is required as a condition of release.” This is a Grade C violation. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(3).

         Second, the Report states that on the morning of May 28, 2019, U.S. Probation Officer Brian Rains received information from Dismas Charities that, in the late hours of May 27 into the early morning hours of May 28, halfway house staff attempted to secure a urine specimen from Defendant. While staff were doing so, Defendant was found to be in possession of a Visine bottle, which he refused to turn over. Based on this conduct, the Report again alleges that Defendant violated the condition of his release that states: “You must refrain from obstructing or attempting to obstruct or tamper, in any fashion, with the efficiency and accuracy of any prohibited substance abuse testing, which is required as a condition of release.” This is a Grade C violation. See id.

         Third, the Report states that, as a result of the conduct discussed above, Defendant is being terminated from the Dismas Charities halfway house program. Such a dismissal is prior to Defendant completing the six-month term imposed as a condition of his release. Thus, the Report alleges that Defendant violated the condition of his supervised release that states: “You must participate in a six-month halfway house program selected by the United States Probation Office.” This is also a Grade C violation. See id.

         The Addendum alleges an additional violation by Defendant and states that, on the afternoon of May 31, 2019, deputies with the United States Marshals Service traveled to Dismas Charities, Lexington, for the purpose of serving the outstanding supervised release warrant on Defendant. After being taken into custody, Defendant was found to be in possession of a small baggie containing heroin. The baggie was recovered from a pocket of Defendant's shorts. Notably, according to the Marshals Service deputies, Defendant verbally confirmed the substance as heroin.

         The Addendum explains that heroin is a Schedule I controlled substance, and that under Kentucky law, a person is guilty of possession of a controlled substance - 1st degree, when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses a controlled substance that is classified in Schedules I or II and is a narcotic drug. See KRS § 218A.1415. Further, under Kentucky law, such an offense is a Class D felony for the first offense and a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.