DEBRA McVICKER LYNCH, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the undersigned according to the Order entered by the Honorable Tanya Walton Pratt, directing the duty magistrate judge to conduct a hearing on the Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision ("Petition") filed on December 15, 2015, and to submit proposed Findings of Facts and Recommendations for disposition under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3401(i) and 3583(e). Proceedings were held on January 5, 2016 and January 12, 2016, in accordance with Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
On January 12, 2016, defendant Jamie Smith appeared in person with his appointed counsel, Michael Donahoe. The government appeared by William McCoskey, Assistant United States Attorney. The United States Probation Office ("USPO") appeared by Officer Jay Hardy, who participated in the proceedings.
The court conducted the following procedures in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583:
1. The court advised Mr. Smith of his right to remain silent, his right to counsel, and his right to be advised of the charges against him. The court asked Mr. Smith questions to ensure that he had the ability to understand the proceedings and his rights.
2. A copy of the Petition was provided to Mr. Smith and his counsel, who informed the court they had reviewed the Petition and that Mr. Smith understood the violations alleged. Mr. Smith waived further reading of the Petition.
3. The court advised Mr. Smith of his right to a preliminary hearing and its purpose in regard to the alleged violations of his supervised release specified in the Petition. Mr. Smith was advised of the rights he would have at a preliminary hearing. Mr. Smith stated that he wished to waive his right to a preliminary hearing.
4. Mr. Smith stipulated that there is a basis in fact to hold him on the specifications of violations of supervised release as set forth in the Petition. Mr. Smith executed a written waiver of the preliminary hearing, which the court accepted.
5. The court advised Mr. Smith of his right to a hearing on the Petition and of his rights in connection with a hearing. The court specifically advised him that at a hearing, he would have the right to present evidence, to cross-examine any witnesses presented by the United States, and to question witnesses against him unless the court determined that the interests of justice did not require a witness to appear.
6. Mr. Smith, by counsel, stipulated that he committed Violation Numbers 1 through 4 (with the exception of paragraph 3 of Violation Number 3 in the Petition) as follows:
7. The court placed Mr. Smith under oath and directly inquired of Mr. Clark whether he admitted violations 1 through 4 of his supervised release set forth above. Mr. Clark admitted the violations 1, 2, 3 (in part), and 4 as set forth above. Violation 3 of the Petition, paragraph 3 is stricken by agreement of the parties.
8. The parties and the USPO further stipulated that:
9. The parties jointly recommended a sentence of 5 months with no supervised release to follow. The defendant will be permitted to self-surrender pending designation. Defendant requested that he be placed at a medical facility.
The Court, having heard the admissions of the defendant, the stipulations of the parties, and the arguments and position of each party and the USPO,
Counsel for the parties and Mr. Smith stipulated in open court waiver of the following:
1. Notice of the filing of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation;
2. Objection to the Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and (C); and, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 59(b)(2).
Counsel for the parties and Mr. Smith entered the above stipulations and waivers after being notified by the undersigned Magistrate Judge that the District Court may refuse to accept the stipulations and waivers and conduct a revocation hearing pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. §3561 et seq. and Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and may reconsider the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, including making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendation upon which she may reconsider.
WHEREFORE, the magistrate judge
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.