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 Recommended Disposition [R.
414] filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram.
The Defendant Aaron Roberts is charged with two violations of
his supervised release conditions. Id. at 3. For the
reasons that follow, the Recommended Disposition [R. 414]
will be adopted.
was originally entered against Mr. Roberts in April 2015,
after he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to
manufacture fifty grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine.
Id. at 1. Mr. Roberts was then sentenced to
thirty-eight months of imprisonment, followed by a two-year
term of supervised release. Id. Mr. Roberts began
his term of supervised release on October 13, 2017.
Id. at 2.
December 20, 2017, the Defendant's supervised release was
revoked for the first time after he was found guilty of two
violations, each stemming from his submission of a urine
sample to his probation officer which tested positive for
methamphetamine. [Id.; R. 324.] As a result of these
violations, Mr. Roberts was sentenced to twelve months and
one day of imprisonment, followed by a three-year term of
supervised release. [R. 414 at 2.] On October 12, 2018, Mr.
Roberts was again released and began his additional term of
25, 2019, the United States Probation Office issued a
Supervised Release Violation Report which initiated these
proceedings. Id. at 3. The Report charged Mr.
Roberts with two violations stemming from Defendant's
admission to the use of methamphetamine. Id.
Specifically, Violation 1 alleges that Mr. Roberts violated
the condition of his supervised release which requires him to
refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance.
Id. This conduct would constitute a Grade C
violation. Id. Violation 2 alleges that Mr. Roberts
violated the condition that requires he not commit another
federal, state, or local crime. Id. Based on Mr.
Roberts' prior drug conviction, use is the same as
possession. Id. Therefore, his admitted use of
methamphetamine is conduct in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
844(c), Possession of a Controlled Substance, a Class E
Felony. Id. This conduct would constitute a Grade B
final hearing on July 22, 2019, Mr. Roberts competently
entered a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent stipulation to
Violations 1 and 2 as charged in the Report. [R. 412.] The
parties did not offer a jointly recommended sentence. [R. 414
at 4.] The United States argued for fourteen months of
imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release.
Id. Defense counsel argued for a Guideline Range
sentence with a period of supervised release to follow to
provide Mr. Roberts with stability. Id. On August
20, 2019, Judge Ingram issued a Recommended Disposition which
recommended revocation of Mr. Roberts' supervised release
and a term of thirteen months of imprisonment with two years
of supervised release to follow. Id. at 8.
Ingram appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553
factors in coming to his recommended sentence. Id.
at 5. The current violations arising from Mr. Roberts'
use of methamphetamine are closely linked to his original
conviction for methamphetamine trafficking. Id. at
7. His use of methamphetamine creates concern that he will
begin trafficking again. Id. As such, it is clear
there is a real need to deter future criminal conduct because
it puts both Mr. Roberts and the community at risk.
Id. Relatedly, as Judge Ingram noted, Congress does
mandate revocation in a case of this nature. Id. at
Court has provided Mr. Roberts with multiple opportunities to
receive treatment for his drug addiction. Id. at 2,
7. Unfortunately, the present violations show that Mr.
Roberts has again relapsed. Id. at 2-5. Indeed, Mr.
Roberts indicated to the court that he cannot promise that he
will stop using drugs, although he wants to stop.
Id. at 5. Mr. Roberts' desire to overcome his
addiction is to be commended, however, his continued drug use
in light of the treatment opportunities he has been afforded
is a significant breach of the Court's trust.
Id. at 7. The Court reminds Mr. Roberts that the
primary wrong in the supervised release context is the
violation of the Court's trust.
are several mitigating factors in Mr. Roberts' case.
Judge Ingram notes that he is a good worker and, further,
that he was honest with the USPO and the Court concerning his
recent use and his addiction. Id. at 8. However, the
aggravating factors in this case, particularly the recurring
breaches of the Court's trust, warrant a significant term
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. Id. at 9; see 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). No. objections have been filed, and Defendant
Roberts submitted a waiver of allocution. [R. 416.]
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.
and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
Recommended Disposition [R. 414] as to
Defendant Aaron Roberts is ADOPTED as and
for the Opinion of the Court;
Defendant Roberts is found to have violated the terms of his
Supervised Release as set forth in the Report and Addendum
filed by the U.S. Probation Officer and ...