United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
A. INGRAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
referral from District Judge Van Tatenhove (D.E. 114), the
Court considers reported violations of supervised release
conditions by Defendant Thomas W. Maxwell, Jr. This is his
Judge Van Tatenhove entered an amended judgment against
Defendant on March 5, 2013, for failure to register as a sex
offender. D.E. 50; 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Defendant was
sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment followed by a life
term of supervised release, which included several special
conditions. Id. Defendant began his first term of
supervised release on February 19, 2013.
first revocation proceedings began on June 18, 2013, when the
United States Probation Office (“USPO”) issued a
report that charged Defendant with failing to obtain
pre-approval for his residence and associating with a
convicted felon without permission. An addendum (clarified by
a second addendum) charged Defendant with leaving the
judicial district without permission, failing to register as
a sex offender under state law, and committing another crime,
i.e., failing to register as a sex offender.
Defendant stipulated to all the violations and was sentenced
to eighteen months of imprisonment to be followed by lifetime
supervision. Defendant was released on October 22, 2014, to
begin his second term of supervised release.
second set of revocation proceedings began on November 20,
2014, when the USPO charged Defendant with using a computer
or device with access to on-line computer service. An
addendum further charged failure to comply with Kentucky sex
offender registration. Defendant stipulated to both
violations, and he was sentenced to 24 months of
incarceration with a lifetime term of supervised release to
follow. Defendant was released on December 13, 2016, to begin
his third term of supervised release.
third set of revocation proceedings began on February 13,
2017, when the USPO charged Defendant with using two
smartphones without permission. Defendant admitted guilt and
was sentenced to another 24 months of imprisonment, followed
by lifetime supervised release. Defendant began his fourth
term of supervised release on January 4, 2019.
31, 2019, the USPO issued a Supervised Release Violation
Report (“the Report”) that initiated these
proceedings. The Report charges two violations. The first
violation concerns the condition that Defendant not possess
or use any device with access to the internet without prior
written approval by his probation officer. According to the
Report, On May 7, 2019, the undersigned [probation officer]
was informed that Mr. Maxwell reported two different numbers
he could be contacted at by Vocational Rehabilitation.
On May 17, 2019, the undersigned was informed by Mr. Maxwell
that these were landlines. On May 28, 2019, the previously
reported number 859-397-9139 was confirmed by the undersigned
to be a smartphone that Mr. Maxwell was in possession of. On
May 30, 2019, Mr. Maxwell was confronted about the
smartphone. He confirmed he had purchased a smartphone and
used said phone.
a Grade C violation.
#2 alleges a violation of Defendant's condition requiring
him to participate in a treatment program for mental health
and sexual disorders and follow all program rules. According
to the Report, the treatment provider informed the USPO that
Defendant failed to attend his treatment on May 24, 2019. A
representative of the provider said Defendant told them he
had overslept. Defendant also told them he could not attend
the group sessions “due to employment and would only be
attending individual sessions.” Defendant had also been
“a poor participant” during his April 12, 2019,
group session-dominating the session and getting the group
off-track. This is a Grade C violation.
7, 2019, the Court conducted an initial appearance on the
Report pursuant to Rule 32.1 and set a final hearing
following a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the
right to a preliminary hearing. D.E. 119. At the initial
appearance, the United States made an oral motion for interim
detention; Defendant did not argue for release. Id.
The Court found detention was appropriate as Defendant did
not carry the heavy release burden imposed upon him under
Rule 32.1(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a). Id.
17, 2019, the USPO issued an Addendum to the Report. The
Addendum charges, in Violation #3, another violation of the
condition that Defendant not use a device with access to the
internet. According to the Addendum, the probation officer
received a call on June 4 informing him that Defendant had
another smartphone. Defendant was incarcerated at the time,
and the officer visited his residence. Defendant's
roommate showed the officer the phone “in plain view,
next to Mr. Maxwell's bed” and confirmed the phone
was Defendant's. The officer seized the phone.
A subsequent search of the cell phone showed several pictures
of pornography. There were several pornographic websites
visited. Also search history showing searches for the
“darkweb” and “darkweb signup.” There
was a picture recovered showing two topless females that