Filed: May 01, 2014
Latest Update: May 01, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING PETITION TO REVOKE PROBATION DANIEL T. K. HURLEY, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the court upon the government's petition to revoke supervised release of the petitioner based upon alleged commission of food stamp fraud in violation of 414.39(2), Florida Statutes [ECF 146], which matter was previously referred to Magistrate Judge William Matthewman for a report and recommendation. Following evidentiary hearing
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING PETITION TO REVOKE PROBATION DANIEL T. K. HURLEY, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the court upon the government's petition to revoke supervised release of the petitioner based upon alleged commission of food stamp fraud in violation of 414.39(2), Florida Statutes [ECF 146], which matter was previously referred to Magistrate Judge William Matthewman for a report and recommendation. Following evidentiary hearing ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING PETITION TO REVOKE PROBATION
DANIEL T. K. HURLEY, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the court upon the government's petition to revoke supervised release of the petitioner based upon alleged commission of food stamp fraud in violation of §414.39(2), Florida Statutes [ECF 146], which matter was previously referred to Magistrate Judge William Matthewman for a report and recommendation.
Following evidentiary hearing upon the petition, on March 27, 2014, Magistrate Judge Matthewman issued his report and recommendation that the defendant be found NOT GUILTY of violating a mandatory condition of his supervise release, and that the amended petition to revoke supervised release be DISMISSED [ECF 153].
To date, no party has filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation.
Observing that a similarly worded federal statute prohibiting the use, acquisition, or possession of food stamps "in any manner not authorized by [the statue] or the regulations" has been interpreted to require proof of mens rea, i.e. to require proof that the defendant knowingly did an act that the law forbids, purposely intending to violate the law, see Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985), it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation, finding insufficient evidence of a violation of the terms of supervised release as specified in the government's Amended Petition [ECF 153] is APPROVED AND ADOPTED.
2. The court accordingly now finds that the government has failed to carry its burden of proving the existence of the sole alleged supervised release violation, i.e. that the defendant violated the terms of his supervised release by committing food stamp fraud in violation of § 414.39(2), Fla. Statutes.
3. The court finds the defendant ELIJAH CHARLTON NOT GUILTY of violating a mandatory condition of his supervised release.
4. The government's Amended Petition to revoke the defendant's supervised release [ECF 146] is accordingly DISMISSED.
