REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TIMOTHY P. GREELEY, Magistrate Judge.

On August 6, 2010, a criminal complaint was filed alleging that David Ryan Lemon had committed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2113(d). Defendant Lemon made his first appearance before the undersigned on August 6, 2010, and on August 9, 2010, a psychological or psychiatric evaluation was ordered to determine defendant's competence to proceed. A competency hearing was held on November 19, 2010, and the Court found that defendant was competent to proceed. This finding was based on the psychological evaluation received from the Federal Detention Center at Seatac, Washington, which indicated that defendant suffered from a serious mental illness that was adequately treated with medication. Defendant was convicted of armed bank robbery by jury verdict on May 18, 2011. Sentencing was set before United States District Judge R. Allan Edgar for August 18, 2011. The undersigned received information that defendant was refusing to take his medication and, therefore, his mental condition had significantly deteriorated. A hearing was held on August 11, 2011, to determine whether or not defendant was competent to proceed with sentencing. As a result of that hearing, an order was issued for a psychological evaluation to determine defendant's competence to proceed with sentencing. On November 28, 2011, the Court received a psychological evaluation indicating that defendant was not competent to proceed to sentencing. On December 15, 2011, a hearing was held and it was determined that defendant was not competent to proceed to sentencing and the issue of involuntary medication was raised. Thereafter, the parties requested an opportunity to file briefs and on January 25, 2012, counsel for defendant filed a brief in opposition to involuntary medication. On January 30, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation with proposed order that provided:

That order was entered on February 2, 2012. Defendant continued to refuse to take his medication and his condition did not improve. Another hearing was held on April 20, 2012, with defendant and defense counsel participating by video conference.

Involuntary medication of defendant under the circumstances presented is governed by Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). Involuntary medication is only appropriate if the government establishes by clear and convincing evidence that (1) there is the existence of an important governmental interest, (2) that involuntary medication would significantly further that governmental interest, (3) that involuntary medication is necessary to further those interests, and (4) that administration of the drugs must be medically appropriate for the individual defendant. See United States v. Green, 532 F.3d 538 (6th Cir. 2008).

The evidence of record establishes that defendant suffers from a serious mental illness. This mental illness has been successfully treated in the past with medication. The testimony provided to the Court suggests that administration of involuntary medication would likely return defendant to competence and that administration of this medication would be medically appropriate. Both parties, however, agree that the government cannot meet its obligation of establishing an important governmental interest mandating involuntary medication at the present time. The parties recommend, and the Court finds, that this matter is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 4244(d). That provision provides:

It is respectfully recommended that the Court find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect and that he should, in lieu of being sentenced to imprisonment, be committed to a suitable facility for care or treatment. Defendant should be committed to the custody of the Attorney General. The undersigned concludes that defendant's constitutional rights can best be served by imposition of a provisional sentence of imprisonment to the maximum term authorized by law for the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 4244(d). Both parties notified the Court that a provisional sentence of 25 years should be entered in this matter. The parties have further indicated that there is no reason to return defendant to this Court for imposition of this provisional sentence as the hearings held by the undersigned satisfy any right defendant might have to appear at sentencing. This is particularly true where defendant has been found not competent to proceed to sentencing and there would be no benefit to his appearance before this Court. Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that the Court enter an order imposing a provisional sentence of 25 years. A proposed Order is attached to this Report and Recommendation for consideration by the Court.

NOTICE TO PARTIES: Objections to this Report and Recommendation must be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).