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.
107.] Defendant Randall K. Perkins has been charged with
three violations of his supervised release. Id. at
16, 2009, this Court sentenced Mr. Perkins to ninety-two
months imprisonment for conspiracy to use interstate commerce
facilities to commit murder-for-hire. [R. 87; R. 88.] He
began his three-year term of supervised release on November
28, 2018. [R. 107 at 1.]
to the Supervised Release Violation Report (the Report)
issued by the USPO on February 22, 2019, Mr. Perkins was
arrested in Knox County and charged with First Degree
Trafficking in a Controlled Substance, Operating a Motor
Vehicle Under the Influence of Drugs/Alcohol, and Reckless
Driving. Id. at 1-2. The trafficking charge related
to less than two grams of methamphetamine, and Knox County
charged the crime as a second or greater offense, a Class C
felony with a sentence of five to ten years. Ky. Rev. Stat.
Ann. §§ 218A.1412(1)(e), 218A.1412(3)(b)(1), and
532.060(2)(c). Mr. Perkins's supervised release requires
he not commit another state, federal, or local crime. [R.
88.] Violation #1 charges Mr. Perkins with violating this
condition based on his trafficking charge, which is a Grade A
violation because it is punishable by a term of imprisonment
over one year. [R. 107 at 1-2.] Violation #2 also charges him
with violating his condition, but this time for his driving
under the influence charge. Id. at 2. This is a
Grade C violation. Id.
Judge Hanly A. Ingram held an initial appearance on these
violations on February 29, 2019, where Mr. Perkins knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to a
preliminary hearing. Id. The United States moved for
interim detention and Mr. Perkins requested a detention
hearing. Id. On the day of the detention hearing,
March 5, 2019, the USPO issued an Addendum to the report,
adding a third violation related to his February Kentucky
charges. Id. His conditions of supervised release
also prohibit him from associating with a person convicted of
a felony or engaged in criminal activity without permission
from USPO. [R. 88.] Apparently, Mr. Perkins had a passenger
the night he was arrested, and a search of his passenger
determined she was in possession of methamphetamine and
needles. [R. 107 at 3.] The passenger was arrested and
charged with drug possession and trafficking. Id.
Violation #3 charges a violation of his condition to avoid
others engaged in criminal activity, a Grade C violation.
March 5, 2019, Judge Ingram also held an initial appearance
on Violation #3. Id. Following initial appearance,
Judge Ingram held a detention hearing, where Mr. Perkins
argued for release. Id. After hearing evidence and
argument, Judge Ingram determined Mr. Perkins did not meet
the heavy defense burden imposed by § 3143 and remanded
him to Marshal custody. Id.
final revocation hearing on July 16, 2019, the Government
moved to dismiss Violation #2. Id. at 3-4. Mr.
Perkins contested the other two violations. Id. at
4. Judge Ingram heard testimony from the Knox County
sheriff's deputy who had arrested Mr. Perkins in
February, as well as his federal probation officer. [R. 104;
R. 106.] The Government also introduced as evidence recorded
jail calls made by Mr. Perkins. [R. 104.] Judge Ingram ruled
that Violation #3 had been established by a preponderance of
the evidence but took Violation #1 under advisement to review
the jail calls. [R. 107 at 4.] On August 1, 2019, Judge
Ingram reconvened the final hearing and found that Violation
#1 had been established. Id. Neither party filed
objections to this determination, and the time to do so has
now expired. Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 59(b).
Mr. Perkins's criminal history category of VI and a Grade
A violation, Judge Ingram calculated his Guidelines
Range to be thirty-three to forty-one months. [R. 107 at 5.]
However, because the statutory maximum sentence is two years,
Mr. Perkins's effective Range is twenty-four months.
Id.; U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(b)(1). The Government
argued for the statutory maximum sentence, followed by twelve
months of supervised release. [R. 107 at 9.] Mr. Perkins
noted that the state charges were dismissed, so without the
Class A charge, his Range would be eight to fourteen months.
Id. at 10. However, he conceded that he had no
strong argument against the Government's recommendation,
only that this was Mr. Perkins's first violation.
consideration of the nature and circumstances of Mr.
Perkins's conviction, as well as his history and
characteristics, Judge Ingram recommended revocation.
Id. at 12. He noted that Mr. Perkins has had a long
and violent criminal history, and even now, he has been
orchestrating drug trafficking from jail. Id. at 9.
Mr. Perkins had only been released for three months before he
was arrested again. Judge Ingram ultimately found that a
statutory maximum sentence would be appropriate here based on
those circumstances. Id. at 10. His underlying
conviction, solicitation of murder, is very serious, and he
was granted leniency at his initial sentencing. Citing all these
concerns, Judge Ingram recommended a statutory maximum
sentence of twenty-four months. Id. at 12. The Court
agrees with this recommendation, and echoes Judge
Ingram's concern about this egregious breach of the
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 have been filed and the time to do so has now
expired. Instead, Mr. Perkins has filed a waiver of
allocution. [R. 109.]
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 Ingram's
recommended disposition. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
Report and Recommendation [R. 107] as to
Defendant Randall K. Perkins, is ADOPTED as
and for the Opinion of the Court;
Perkins is found GUILTY of Violation #1 ...