U.S. v. FOWLER, 7:13-CR-33 (HL). (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20140903c47
Visitors: 35
Filed: Sep. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 02, 2014
Summary: ORDER HUGH LAWSON, Senior Judge. Before the Court is Defendant James A. Fowler's Petition for Comprehensive Risk Assessment (Doc. 43). The Government asks the Court to deny the petition as unnecessary. After considering the facts of this case as well as the arguments of counsel, the Court denies the petition. In advance of Defendant's sentencing, he has already undergone one psychological evaluation at his request, although the evaluation was performed by a psychologist at the Bureau of Priso
Summary: ORDER HUGH LAWSON, Senior Judge. Before the Court is Defendant James A. Fowler's Petition for Comprehensive Risk Assessment (Doc. 43). The Government asks the Court to deny the petition as unnecessary. After considering the facts of this case as well as the arguments of counsel, the Court denies the petition. In advance of Defendant's sentencing, he has already undergone one psychological evaluation at his request, although the evaluation was performed by a psychologist at the Bureau of Prison..
More
ORDER
HUGH LAWSON, Senior Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant James A. Fowler's Petition for Comprehensive Risk Assessment (Doc. 43). The Government asks the Court to deny the petition as unnecessary. After considering the facts of this case as well as the arguments of counsel, the Court denies the petition.
In advance of Defendant's sentencing, he has already undergone one psychological evaluation at his request, although the evaluation was performed by a psychologist at the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), not Defendant's preferred choice. Contrary to Defendant's representations, the report prepared by the BOP psychologist did provide opinions in the various areas raised by the Court's previous Order (Doc. 36), including Defendant's risk of sexual recidivism. While the BOP psychologist did suggest Defendant undergo additional risk assessment, it is clear from the wording of the report that this recommendation applies to future assessments during the time of Defendant's imprisonment. There being no need for an additional comprehensive risk assessment prior to sentencing, Defendant's petition is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
