Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. RATCLIFF, 1:06-cr-55. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee Number: infdco20120403c65 Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WILLIAM B. MITCHELL CARTER, Magistrate Judge. The defendant appeared for a hearing before the undersigned on April 2, 2012, in accordance with Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on the Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision (Petition) of U.S. Probation Officer Sladjuana Hays and the Warrant for Arrest issued by U.S. District Harry S. Mattice, Jr. Those present for the hearing included: (1) AUSA Terra Bay for the USA. (2) Defendant STACEY O
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM B. MITCHELL CARTER, Magistrate Judge.

The defendant appeared for a hearing before the undersigned on April 2, 2012, in accordance with Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on the Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision (Petition) of U.S. Probation Officer Sladjuana Hays and the Warrant for Arrest issued by U.S. District Harry S. Mattice, Jr. Those present for the hearing included:

(1) AUSA Terra Bay for the USA. (2) Defendant STACEY O. RATCLIFF. (3) Attorney Mary Ellen Coleman for defendant. (4) Deputy Clerk Kelli Jones.

After being sworn in due form of law the defendant was informed or reminded of his privilege against self-incrimination accorded him under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It was determined the defendant wished to be represented by an attorney and he qualified for the appointment of an attorney to represent him at government expense. Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, Inc. was APPOINTED to represent the defendant. It was determined the defendant had been provided with a copy of the Petition and the Warrant for Arrest and had the opportunity of reviewing those documents with his attorney. It was also determined the defendant was capable of being able to read and understand the copy of the aforesaid documents he had been provided.

Defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing and detention hearing.

AUSA Bay moved defendant be detained pending a hearing to determine whether his term of supervision should be revoked.

Findings

(1) Based upon U.S. Probation Officer Hays= petition and defendant=s waiver of preliminary hearing and detention hearing, the undersigned finds there is probable cause to believe defendant has committed violations of his conditions of supervised release as alleged in the petition.

Conclusions

It is ORDERED:

(1) The defendant shall appear in a revocation hearing before U.S. District Judge Harry S. Mattice, Jr. (2) The motion of AUSA Bay that defendant be DETAINED WITHOUT BAIL pending his revocation hearing before Judge Mattice is GRANTED. (3) The U.S. Marshal shall transport defendant to a revocation hearing before Judge Mattice on Monday, April 30, 2012, at 2:00 pm.
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