Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. WINN, 1:02CR00391-001. (2012)

Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio Number: infdco20120419b05 Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge. This matter was heard on April 16, 2012, upon the request of the United States Pretrial and Probation Office for a finding that defendant had violated the conditions of his supervised release. The defendant was present and represented by Attorney Neal G. Atway. The initial violation report was referred to United States Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert to conduct appropriate proceedings and for the issuance of a Report and Recommendation which was issued
More

ORDER

JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.

This matter was heard on April 16, 2012, upon the request of the United States Pretrial and Probation Office for a finding that defendant had violated the conditions of his supervised release. The defendant was present and represented by Attorney Neal G. Atway.

The initial violation report was referred to United States Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert to conduct appropriate proceedings and for the issuance of a Report and Recommendation which was issued March 20, 2012. (Related Docs. 32 and 51). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed by either plaintiff or defendant.

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and finds that defendant violated the conditions of supervision as follows:

1. New Law Violation— Conviction in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case CR-10-537728-A, two counts of Drug Trafficking and one count of Drug Possession, all fifth-degree felonies. 2. New Law Violation— Conviction in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case CR-10-540147-A, Disorderly Conduct, a first degree misdemeanor.

The Court, having considered all factors in Sec. 3553, commits defendant to the Bureau of Prisons for a term of 14 months on the instant violations with credit for time served. Defendant is given credit for the time he did not receive credit from the state. Upon release from incarceration, there will be no need to continue supervised release as defendant will be on state post release control. It would be duplicative to have them run at the same time. The defendant is remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal, Cleveland, Ohio.

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