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.
106.] Defendant Mable Ashley Jenkins has been charged with
four violations of her terms of supervised release.
2013, Ms. Jenkins plead guilty to and was convicted of aiding
and abetting kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2 and 1201(a)(1), and aiding and abetting
willful bodily injury because of sexual orientation, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 249(a)(2). [R. 72.]
She was sentenced to 100 months of imprisonment followed by
three years of supervised release. Ms. Jenkins began her
first term of supervised release on September 16, 2019.
Ingram's Recommended Disposition more thoroughly explains
the background of the alleged violations, but an overview
will be given here. Ms. Jenkins is, all told, charged with
four violations of her supervised release by way of two
violation reports and an addendum to the first report.
first Violation Report (the First Report), issued September
25, 2019, charged Ms. Jenkins with (1) unlawful use of a
controlled substance and (2) possession of a controlled
substance. Specifically, Ms. Jenkins tested positive for use
of buprenorphine. These are Grade C violations. Ms. Jenkins
appeared before Judge Ingram for her initial appearance on
October 16, 2019, and a final hearing was scheduled for
October 21, 2019.
of Ms. Jenkins's final hearing, the United States
Probation Office (USPO) issued an Addendum to the First
Report charging a third violation: violation of the condition
that forbids Ms. Jenkins from associating any person
convicted of a felony without the probation officer's
permission. Probation issued the Addendum upon learning that,
on September 17, 2019, Ms. Jenkins married Freddie Minton, a
convicted felon currently on supervised release in case
6:13-cr-47-GFVT-17, without prior approval from probation.
Ms. Jenkins's final hearing was converted into an initial
appearance on the Addendum and a final hearing was reset for
October 24, 2019. The Court granted the parties' joint
request that Ms. Jenkins be allowed to immediately enter
inpatient drug treatment.
Jenkins entered Chrysalis House on November 13, 2019, but
unfortunately did not complete the program. USPO issued a
second Violation Report (the Second Report) on November 27,
2019, alleging violation of the condition that requires Ms.
Jenkins to follow the instructions of her probation officer.
Chrysalis House terminated Ms. Jenkins from its program for
failing to comply with facility rules. Thus, Ms. Jenkins
violated probation's instruction to complete inpatient
treatment. This is a Grade C violation.
Jenkins again appeared before Judge Ingram for an initial
appearance on the Second Report pursuant to Rule 32.1. [R.
102.] The United States made an oral motion for detention,
and Ms. Jenkins did not argue for release. Ms. Jenkins was
detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a). The Court
scheduled a final hearing for December 6, 2019. At her final
hearing, Ms. Jenkins knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently stipulated to the violations alleged in the
First Report, the Addendum, and the Second Report.
Subsequently, Judge Ingram prepared a recommended
criminal history category of I and a Grade C violation, Ms.
Jenkins's range under the Revocation Table of Chapter 7
is three to nine months. The Court may also reimpose
supervised release following revocation. Ms. Jenkins's
original conviction carries a maximum term of supervised
release of five years, less any term of incarceration imposed
on revocation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b). At the
final hearing, counsel for the government argued for
revocation in the mid- to high-guidelines range, followed by
a “significant” period of supervised release. In
contrast, defense counsel argued for leniency. The defense
argues that as a result of early drug use, Ms. Jenkins is
essentially operating at the level of a teenager, and that
“addiction has stunted her brain.” The defense
argued that she was not a danger to society because she was
removed from Chrysalis house for smoking a vape, having a
cellphone, and writing a “silly letter.”
Ultimately, the defense requested incarceration for a period
of no more than three months.
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.
Judge Ingram considered the nature and circumstances of the
underlying offense. Ms. Jenkins's underlying conviction
is for a violent crime. She participated in targeting an
acquittance for a brutal beating because of his sexual
orientation. Although her guidelines range was 188 to 235
months, Ms. Jenkins was sentenced to just 100 months
incarceration. Judge Ingram noted that prior leniency can be
a basis for later upward departure. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4,
Ingram also considered the history and characteristics of the
defendant. Ms. Jenkins was only fifteen when she began using
drugs, nineteen when she was convicted of the underlying
offense, and twenty when she was sentenced. Although
“drugs ended up taking the reins of her life, ”
Ms. Jenkins was not successful during inpatient treatment.
Further, she can be come violent when on drugs. Thus, Judge
Ingram found a need to deter future bad conduct and protect
the public, as well as a need for additional outpatient
treatment. Ultimately, Judge Ingram recommended a
within-guidelines sentence of seven months, followed by
fifty-three months of supervised release, the maximum period
allowable. As even the defense admits, Ms. Jenkins
“screwed up on day two, got married on day 30, and
kicked out of rehab on day 60.” [R. 105 at 8.] Judge
Ingram believed, and this Court agrees, that a lengthy period
of supervision is necessary “to protect society in case
[Ms. Jenkins] continues to show herself incapable of comply
with basic rules.” [R. 105 at 8.]
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 ...