Filed: Jan. 10, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2020
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION LURANA S. SNOW , Magistrate Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Final Revocation Hearing on the Second Superseding Petition for Offender Under Supervision (ECF No. 65) which was referred (ECF No 61) to United States Magistrate Judge, Lurana S. Snow for a Report and Recommendation. At the evidentiary hearing on January 6, 2020, the Defendant admitted to Violation Numbers 1 and 2, alleging (1) that the Defendant possessed a Samsung tablet with access to t
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION LURANA S. SNOW , Magistrate Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Final Revocation Hearing on the Second Superseding Petition for Offender Under Supervision (ECF No. 65) which was referred (ECF No 61) to United States Magistrate Judge, Lurana S. Snow for a Report and Recommendation. At the evidentiary hearing on January 6, 2020, the Defendant admitted to Violation Numbers 1 and 2, alleging (1) that the Defendant possessed a Samsung tablet with access to th..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
LURANA S. SNOW, Magistrate Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Final Revocation Hearing on the Second Superseding Petition for Offender Under Supervision (ECF No. 65) which was referred (ECF No 61) to United States Magistrate Judge, Lurana S. Snow for a Report and Recommendation.
At the evidentiary hearing on January 6, 2020, the Defendant admitted to Violation Numbers 1 and 2, alleging (1) that the Defendant possessed a Samsung tablet with access to the internet and (2) after the Samsung tablet was confiscated, used another device to change the passwords on his two unauthorized email accounts. The Government agreed to dismiss violation numbers 3-5, alleging (3) violation of the law by failing to register in Monroe County as a sex offender, (4) violation of the law by possessing ammunition as a convicted felon and (5) violation of the law by committing a battery while in custody at the Monroe County Detention Center. However, the Government reserved the right to file an additional petition if any charges result from the violation of the law alleged in violation number 5. Therefore, being duly advised, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that Defendant, Charles A. Soderman be adjudicated guilty of Violation Numbers 1 and 2 of the Second Superseding Petition for Offender Under Supervision (ECF No. 65).
The parties will have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with the Honorable K.Michael Moore, Chief United States District Judge. Failure to file objections timely shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained therein, except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016).
