REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOHN Z. BOYLE, Magistrate Judge.

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Pending before the Court is a Petition to Revoke Supervised Release (Doc. 3) filed on August 5, 2015. Pursuant to a Standing Order of Referral, the Court referred the Petition to Revoke Supervised Release in the above-numbered case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct a "hearing and preparation of findings and recommendations ... and submit the necessary Report and Recommendation ..." as authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3401(i) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). The parties consented in writing that this Magistrate Judge conduct this hearing on the Petition.

I. Procedural Background

On July 24, 2008, Defendant was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment and 48 months of supervised release. Defendant's supervised release commenced September 17, 2012. On June 16, 2014, Defendant committed the crime of Forgery, a class 4 felony, in Maricopa County, Arizona. On June 4, 2015, Defendant was sentenced to a term of probation of three years for that offense.

On August 5, 2015, a Petition to Revoke Supervised Release was filed alleging one violation:

(Doc. 3 — Pet. to Revoke Supervised Release.)

On December 17, 2015, this Court conducted an evidentiary hearing. Defendant was present and assisted by counsel. The Government presented one exhibit into evidence without objection by Defendant. The evidence contained a certified copy of Defendant's Maricopa County Forgery conviction. No other evidence was presented by the parties.1

II. Findings of Fact

The Court submits the following findings of fact, which are undisputed by the parties:

On June 4, 2015, Defendant was convicted and sentenced for the felony offense of Forgery in Maricopa County Superior Court CR 2014-005325 DT, while Defendant was represented by counsel. Defendant committed that offense on June 16, 2014.

The Court took judicial notice of the fact, without objection by the parties, that Defendant was on supervised release in this case on June 16, 2014. Defendant was subject to Standard Condition #1 at that time. Defendant's supervised release commenced September 17, 2012.

III. Conclusions of Law

"A district court may `revoke a term of supervised release, and require the person to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release ... if the court ... finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.'" United States v. Vallejo, 69 F.3d 992, 994 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)).

The Court finds that Defendant committed a state crime during the term of his supervision in this case.

IV. Recommendation

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and LRCrim 57.6(d)(4), Rules of Practice for the District of Arizona, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, Senior United States District Judge, after an independent review of the record, find Defendant violated the terms of supervised released contained in Allegation A.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(b)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment.

IT IS ORDERED setting a final disposition hearing for January 13, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, Senior United States District Judge, in Courtroom 604, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Probation Department shall prepare a Disposition Report and the Defendant shall cooperate with the Probation Department in its preparation of the Disposition Report.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rule 59(b)(2), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Judge without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Rule 59, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.