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.
233.] Defendant Tim W. Brock has been charged with four
violations of the terms of his supervised release.
Id. at 1.
was originally entered against Mr. Brock in February 2013
following a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to
distribute and possession with intent to distribute less than
50 kilograms of marijuana. Id. He was sentenced to
77 months of incarceration followed by four years of
supervised release. [R. 168.] Brock began his term of
supervised release on November 7, 2017. [R. 233 at 1.] Among
other conditions, Brock's terms of supervision included
that he not commit another federal, state, or local crime,
that he notify his probation officer within seventy-two hours
of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer,
that he not leave the District without permission of the
Court or the probation officer, and that he consume no
alcohol. Id. at 2-3.
16, 2019, Brock was arrested by the Claiborne County,
Tennessee Sheriff's Office and charged with driving under
the influence, in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-
401. Id. at 1-2. According to the state charges
filed, Claiborne County Sheriff's Deputy Jeff Green was
dispatched to a boat dock at an area campground on the report
of an intoxicated male who had run a car into two parked
vehicles. Id. at 2. Upon arrival, Deputy Green found
Brock asleep in the vehicle with the car off but keys in the
ignition. Id. At this time, Brock admitted to
drinking “quite a bit of alcohol” and to hitting
one of the damaged parked vehicles. Id. After
receiving these admissions and observing multiple indicators
of excessive alcohol consumption, Deputy Green arrested
final revocation hearing, held on August 19, 2019, Brock
competently entered a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent
stipulation to three of the four violations as charged by the
USPO in the Supervised Release Violation Report. [R. 231.]
Brock did not admit to the first charged violation, which
alleges that he violated the condition that requires he not
commit another federal, state, or local crime. After the
presentation of evidence, including testimony from Deputy
Green, Magistrate Judge Ingram found that Violation One had
occurred. Id. at 1.
parties did not offer a jointly recommended sentence; the
United States argued for eleven months, while defense counsel
argued for ninety days. [R. 233 at 6.] Additionally, the
United States proposed a three-year term of supervised
release, and the defense counsel proposed two years.
August 22, 2019, Judge Ingram issued a Recommended
Disposition which recommended revocation of Brock's
supervised release and a term of eight months of imprisonment
followed by a two-year term of supervised release.
Id. at 7. Judge Ingram appropriately considered the
record and the relevant §§ 3553 and 3583(e) factors
in order to determine an appropriate revocation term of
imprisonment. [R. 233 at 5-10.] Judge Ingram noted that
Brock's criminal history, “particularly his history
of crimes involving alcohol, ” was troubling.
Id. at 9. Furthermore, the conduct underlying this
set of violations was serious and dangerous. Brock ignored
various terms of his supervised release and placed the public
and others' property in danger by driving while
intoxicated. Id. It is important that Brock
understand the severity of his actions and the need to avoid
the consumption of alcohol or drugs. Id.
primary wrong when an offender violates is his breach of the
Court's trust. Prior to this set of violations, however,
Brock had done well on supervision for over nineteen months
and had not violated any terms of his supervised release.
Id. at 10. Judge Ingram also pointed to additional
mitigating factors, including the fact that Brock was dealing
with the recent death of his sister at the time of the
violations. Id. at 7, 8. Further, Brock's
conduct underlying these violations was not closely related
his underlying conviction, conspiracy to distribute and
possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Id.
at 8-9. A sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines Range is
appropriate in this instance.
to Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
Recommended Disposition further advises the parties that
objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of
service. [R. 233 at 10; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).] No
objections have been filed, and Defendant Brock submitted a
waiver of allocution. [R. 234.] Generally, this Court must
make a de novo determination of those portions of
the Recommended Disposition to which objections are made. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, as
in this case, this 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,
this Court has examined the record and agrees with Magistrate
Judge Ingram's Recommended Disposition. Accordingly, and
the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
Report and Recommendation [R. 233] as to
Defendant Tim W. Brock is ADOPTED as and for
the Opinion of the Court;
Defendant Brock is found to have violated the terms of his
Supervised Release as set forth in the Report filed by the
U.S. Probation Officer and the Recommended Disposition of the
Brock's Supervised Release is REVOKED;
Brock is SENTENCED to the Custody of the
Bureau of Prisons for a term of eight months of imprisonment,