United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division
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.
1300.] Defendant Harrison B. Sulfridge has been charged with
two violations of his supervised release. Id. at 2.
Sulfridge pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture fifty
grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846. [R. 635.] He was originally sentenced to
fifty-seven months of imprisonment followed by a four-year
term of supervised release. Id. That sentence was
later reduced to forty-six months of incarceration pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). Mr. Sulfridge was released
from custody and began his four-year term of supervised
release on October 21, 2016.
August 1, 2019, the United States Probation Office (USPO)
issued the Supervised Release Violation Report (the Report)
that initiated these proceedings. Mr. Sulfridge was arrested
on August 16, 2019. According to the Report, Mr. Sulfridge
has committed two violations of his supervised release
conditions stemming from a urine sample which tested positive
for methamphetamine. Id. Violation 1 alleges Mr.
Sulfridge violated the condition requiring that he refrain
from the use and possession of any controlled substance,
except as prescribed by physician. This is a Grade C
violation. Violation 2 alleges that Mr. Sulfridge violated
the condition requiring that he not commit another federal,
state or local crime. This Violation is based on Mr.
Sulfridge's criminal history and the possession of
methamphetamine, which is in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
844(a) and a Class E felony. This is a Grade B violation.
his initial appearance before Magistrate Judge Hanly A.
Ingram on August 19, 2019, Mr. Sulfridge knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to a
preliminary hearing. [R. 1292.] The United States moved for
interim detention and Mr. Sulfridge did not object.
Id. Judge Ingram determined detention was
appropriate, as he had failed to overcome the burden for
release under Rule 32.1(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a).
Id. Judge Ingram held a final revocation hearing on
September 5, 2019, where Mr. Sulfridge competently entered a
knowing, voluntary, and intelligent stipulation to both
Violations. [R. 1297.]
Mr. Sulfridge's criminal history category of I and Grade
violations, Judge Ingram calculated his Guidelines Range to
be four to ten months. [R. 1300 at 6.] The United States
argued for an eight-month term of incarceration followed by
two years of supervised release. Defense Counsel argued for a
below-guidelines range sentence of time served, with a
two-year term of supervised release to follow.
the parties' positions under advisement, Judge Ingram
considered the relevant §§ 3553 and 3583 factors in
order to determine an appropriate revocation term of
imprisonment. Id. As an initial matter, Judge Ingram
noted that revocation was mandatory in this case. He then
considered the nature and circumstances of the original
offense. Mr. Sulfridge's role in the conspiracy was that
of a cook; he made and taught others how to make
methamphetamine. The fact that the violations are related to
methamphetamine seems to indicate a risk that Mr. Sulfridge
will return to trafficking in methamphetamine. Thus, there is
a strong need to deter. Methamphetamine is a dangerous drug,
and so there is a strong need to protect the public.
to characteristics of the defendant, Judge Ingram also
recognized a strong need for treatment, and found Mr.
Sulfridge was “fully committed” to inpatient
treatment. [R. 1300 at 6.] The Court also recognized Mr.
Sulfridge's challenges related to illiteracy. For that
reason, Judge Ingram recommended he participate in a program
aimed at improving his literacy skills at the discretion of
the USPO. Ultimately, Judge Ingram recommended revocation and
imprisonment for a term of four months, followed by two years
of supervised release under conditions previously imposed,
with the added condition that Mr. Sulfridge complete
inpatient drug abuse treatment and, to the extent available,
a literacy skill improvement program.
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).
Mr. Sulfrdige has indicated he has no objections to Judge
Ingram's Report and Recommendation and has filed a waiver
of allocution [R. 1301] as well as a Motion for Entry of
Judgment [R. 1302] requesting prompt adoption of the
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:
1. The Report and Recommendation [R. 1300]
as to Defendant Harrison B. Sulfridge, is
ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court;
2. Mr. Sulfridge is found GUILTY of
Violation 1 and Violation 2;
3. Mr. Sulfridge's Supervised Release is
4. Mr. Sulfridge is hereby SENTENCED to a
term of incarceration of four (4) months
with two (2) years of supervised release of
under the conditions previously imposed, with the added
conditions that Defendant complete inpatient drug abuse
treatment as directed by USPO, and, to the extent available,