U.S. v. GOLDTOOTH, CR 06-246-TUC-DCB (CRP). (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20120412954
Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. BURY, District Judge. This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and the local rules of practice of this Court for hearing and report and recommendation on the Government's Petition for Violation of Supervised Release. Magistrate Judge Pyle conducted a hearing on March 20, 2012, and issued his Report and Recommendation on March 23, 2012. A copy was sent to all parties. No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Rec
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. BURY, District Judge. This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and the local rules of practice of this Court for hearing and report and recommendation on the Government's Petition for Violation of Supervised Release. Magistrate Judge Pyle conducted a hearing on March 20, 2012, and issued his Report and Recommendation on March 23, 2012. A copy was sent to all parties. No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Reco..
More
ORDER
DAVID C. BURY, District Judge.
This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and the local rules of practice of this Court for hearing and report and recommendation on the Government's Petition for Violation of Supervised Release.
Magistrate Judge Pyle conducted a hearing on March 20, 2012, and issued his Report and Recommendation on March 23, 2012. A copy was sent to all parties. No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed. Any objections that have not been raised are waived and will not be addressed by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The Court, having made an independent review of the record, orders as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Pyle's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 162) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by this Court as the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant is found in violation of Allegation A;
2. Allegations B, C and D are hereby dismissed; and
3. Defendant is found not to be in violation of Allegation E.
4. The Arrest Warrant issued by this Court on April 3, 2012 is hereby quashed.
5. The Superseding Petition for Warrant will be addressed at the Disposition Hearing scheduled for April 27, 2012 at 9:45 a.m.
Source: Leagle
