Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Stevenson, 3:15cr54. (2020)

Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio Number: infdco20200219819 Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 13, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2020
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY FINDING DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF HIS SUPERVISED RELEASE WHICH BEGAN NOVEMBER 2, 2017, REVOKING SAME AND IMPOSING SENTENCE, WITH NO PERIOD OF SUPERVISED RELEASE TO FOLLOW; NEITHER COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT NOR FOR THE DEFENDANT HAD ANY PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS TO THIS COURT'S DISPOSITION; RIGHT OF APPEAL EXPLAINED AND UNDERSTOOD; TERMINATION ENTRY WALTER H. RICE , District Judge . On August 14, 2019, the Defendant appeared in open Court and admitted to allega
More

DECISION AND ENTRY FINDING DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF HIS SUPERVISED RELEASE WHICH BEGAN NOVEMBER 2, 2017, REVOKING SAME AND IMPOSING SENTENCE, WITH NO PERIOD OF SUPERVISED RELEASE TO FOLLOW; NEITHER COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT NOR FOR THE DEFENDANT HAD ANY PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS TO THIS COURT'S DISPOSITION; RIGHT OF APPEAL EXPLAINED AND UNDERSTOOD; TERMINATION ENTRY

On August 14, 2019, the Defendant appeared in open Court and admitted to allegations set forth against him in a Petition directing him to show cause why his supervised release, a status that began November 2, 2017, should not be revoked. The Court accepted the admissions and found the Defendant in violation of said supervised release.

Immediately thereafter, pursuant to the record made in open Court on the aforesaid August 14, 2019, the Court revoked the Defendant's supervised release and remanded him to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States, the Bureau of Prisons, for a period of 24 months, to be served consecutively to the aggregate 36-month sentence imposed in Case No. 3:18cr108, also on the aforesaid August 14, 2019. There will be no period of supervised release to follow the 24-month sentence imposed, upon revocation of supervised release in the captioned cause.

Neither counsel for the government nor for the Defendant had any procedural or substantive objections to this Court's disposition.

The Defendant was orally explained his right of appeal and he orally indicated an understanding of same.

The captioned cause is ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer