United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
Gregory F. Van, Judge
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. [R.
70.] Defendant Alexis Leeann Jenkins has been charged with
four violations of her terms of supervised release.
Id. In July 2013, this Court entered judgment
against Ms. Jenkins for aiding and abetting kidnapping and
aiding and abetting willful bodily injury because of sexual
orientation. [R. 56.] Ms. Jenkins was sentenced to 96 months
incarceration followed by three years of supervised release.
Id. Mr. Jenkin's initial term of supervised
release began on March 1, 2019.
August 6, 2019, the United States Probation Office (USPO)
issued a Supervised Release Violation Report (the Report)
that initiated these proceedings. The Report charges four
violations, all connected with drug use. Violation 1 alleges
a violation of the condition requiring Ms. Jenkins to refrain
from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. According to
the Report, on July 31, 2019, probation collected a urine
specimen from Ms. Jenkins. She admitted to using marijuana on
three to five occasions since her release. This is a Grade C
violation. Violation 2 alleges a violation of the condition
that she not commit another federal, state, or local crime.
a Grade C violation.
3 also alleges a violation of the condition requiring Ms.
Jenkins to refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled
substance. On August 5, 2019, Ms. Jenkins submitted a urine
specimen that tested positive for methamphetamine. She
admitted to using methamphetamine several times since
release. Violation 3 is a Grade C Violation. Violation 4
alleges a violation of the condition that she not commit
another federal, state, or local crime. The Sixth Circuit has
held drug use is equivalent to possession. Therefore, due to
Ms. Jenkin's prior conviction and the Sixth Circuit's
holding, “simple possession of methamphetamine
constitutes conduct in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844 (a),
a Class E Felony.” This is a Grade B violation.
August 23, 2019, Ms. Jenkins appeared before Magistrate Judge
Ingram for her initial appearance pursuant to Rule 32.1. [R.
64.] While there, the probation officer reported that Ms.
Jenkins had submitted a urine specimen that day, and had
admitted that she used methamphetamine on August 17, 2019.
Accordingly, an addendum to the report was forthcoming. Ms.
Jenkins knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her
right to a preliminary hearing. Id. The United
States made an oral motion for detention, and Ms. Jenkin
argued for release. Id. Judge Ingram determined that
detention was required. Id.
addendum, issued August 23, 2019, alleged two additional
violations. Violation 5 alleges a violation of the condition
requiring Defendant to refrain from any unlawful use of a
controlled substance. This charge is based on her written
admission that she had used methamphetamine on August 17.
This is a Grade C Violation. Violation 6 charges Defendant
with violating the condition that she not commit another
federal, state, or local crime. As already noted, the Sixth
Circuit has held drug use is equivalent to possession.
Therefore, due to Ms. Jenkin's prior conviction and the
Sixth Circuit's holding, “simple possession of
methamphetamine constitutes conduct in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 844 (a), a Class E Felony.” This is a Grade B
September 9, 2019, Judge Ingram held a final revocation
hearing wherein Ms. Jenkins knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently stipulated to the violations alleged in the
report and the addendum. [R. 69.] Subsequently, Judge Ingram
prepared a recommended disposition. [R. 70.]
initial matter, Judge Ingram noted that revocation is
mandatory because Ms. Jenkins was in possession of a
controlled substance. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1). Ms.
Jenkins' admitted conduct qualifies as a Grade B
violation with respect to Violations 4 and 6, and a Grade C
violation with respect to Violations 1 through 3 and 5. [R.
64 at 2-3.] With her criminal history of I and a Grade
violation, Ms. Jenkins' range under the Revocation Table
is 4-10 months. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(b). At the
final hearing, the parties jointly recommended a sentence.
The parties called for revocation with time served. The
parties agreed that as soon as a bed became available, Ms.
Jenkins would leave incarceration and enter a 90-day
inpatient treatment program. The parties also agreed that a
new three-year term of supervised release should begin on
that date. Upon successful completion of the treatment
program, Ms. Jenkins would immediately begin a 6-month term
in a halfway house. Following that 6-month term, she would
continue on supervision under the conditions.
that revocation was mandatory, Judge Ingram considered the
relevant §§ 3553 and 3583 factors in order to
determine an appropriate revocation term of imprisonment. Ms.
Jenkins' underlying conviction is for a violent crime;
however, her probation officer reports that she does not
currently display and violent or hateful tendencies. Prior to
sentencing, Ms. Jenkins expressed remorse for her crime, and
the victim stated that he believed she was genuinely
remorseful. Judge Ingram also considered the history and
characteristics of the Defendant. Ms. Jenkins was
“barely eighteen” when she was arrested. Her
whole life she was struggled with drug addiction. Ms. Jenkins
states she first began using drugs at age thirteen. The
parties agree that the best way to protect the public and
deter further criminal conduct is to treat Ms. Jenkins'
addiction. The United States has indicated that it is willing
to “take a chance” on Ms. Jenkins, and giver her
on more opportunity at rehabilitation.
Judge Ingram correctly noted that the primary wrong in the
supervised release context is the violation of the
Court's trust by the defendant. [R. 64 at 7.] Judge
Ingram found Jenkins' breach of trust to be significant.
Ms. Jenkins used marijuana and methamphetamine on multiple
occasions while on supervised release. She continued to use
methamphetamine even after USPO issued the initial violation
report. Nevertheless, Judge Ingram ultimately adopted the
parties' recommended sentence, finding that the relevant
§ 3553(a) factors supported such a penalty.
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 Ingram's Report and Recommendation
were filed within the appropriate time by either party.
Instead, Ms. Jenkins has filed a waiver of allocution. [R.
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. 70] as to
Defendant Alexis Leeann Jenkins is ADOPTED