Filed: Sep. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION TO REVOKE RELEASE DEFENDANT'S SUPERVISED RELEASE BERNARDO P. VELASCO, Magistrate Judge. On May 7, 2014, a Petition to Revoke Defendant's Supervised Release [Doc. 309] was filed and an Arrest Warrant [Doc. 310] was issued for Defendant. On August 14, 2014, Defendant was arrested and his initial appearance hearing was held. An Admit/Deny Hearing before this Court was scheduled. On September 17, 2014, an Evidentiary Hearing was held concerning the Petition t
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION TO REVOKE RELEASE DEFENDANT'S SUPERVISED RELEASE BERNARDO P. VELASCO, Magistrate Judge. On May 7, 2014, a Petition to Revoke Defendant's Supervised Release [Doc. 309] was filed and an Arrest Warrant [Doc. 310] was issued for Defendant. On August 14, 2014, Defendant was arrested and his initial appearance hearing was held. An Admit/Deny Hearing before this Court was scheduled. On September 17, 2014, an Evidentiary Hearing was held concerning the Petition to..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION TO REVOKE RELEASE DEFENDANT'S SUPERVISED RELEASE
BERNARDO P. VELASCO, Magistrate Judge.
On May 7, 2014, a Petition to Revoke Defendant's Supervised Release [Doc. 309] was filed and an Arrest Warrant [Doc. 310] was issued for Defendant. On August 14, 2014, Defendant was arrested and his initial appearance hearing was held. An Admit/Deny Hearing before this Court was scheduled.
On September 17, 2014, an Evidentiary Hearing was held concerning the Petition to Revoke Supervised Release [Doc. 309] and a Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge [Doc. 322] was filed. The Government called as witnesses Gloria Adamski-Soto and Michael Lorenzini and the defense called as witnesses Frances Romero and Defendant Emigdio Madueno.
The Court, having considered the arguments and evidence presented, recommends that the District Judge, after her independent review and consideration, enter an order DENYING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Allegation A of the Petition, but GRANTING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Allegation B of the Petition, as the Court finds the Defendant responsible as to Allegation A for not informing the probation officer of his correct residential address.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), the parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections to these findings and recommendations with the District Court. Any objections and Responses to objections filed should be filed as CR 06-00945-TUC-CKJ. No Replies shall be filed unless leave is granted from the District Court.
