Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Alexander, 08-14014-CR-MARTINEZ/MAYNARD. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. Florida Number: infdco20170821778 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 21, 2017
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S ADMISSION TO VIOLATION NUMBERS 1 and 2 AS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION FOR WARRANT FOR OFFENDER UNDER SUPERVISED RELEASE SHANIEK M. MAYNARD , Magistrate Judge . THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for a final hearing on July 20, 2017, in respect to the pending Petition for Warrant for Offender under Supervised Release [D.E. 269] ("Petition"), and this Court having convened a hearing, now recommends to the District Court as follows: 1. The Defenda
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S ADMISSION TO VIOLATION NUMBERS 1 and 2 AS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION FOR WARRANT FOR OFFENDER UNDER SUPERVISED RELEASE

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for a final hearing on July 20, 2017, in respect to the pending Petition for Warrant for Offender under Supervised Release [D.E. 269] ("Petition"), and this Court having convened a hearing, now recommends to the District Court as follows:

1. The Defendant appeared before this Court on July 20, 2017 for a final hearing in respect to the Petition, which alleges the following violations of supervised release:

Violation Number 1 Violation of Mandatory Condition, by unlawfully possessing or using a controlled substance. On April 18, April 28, May 2, May 4, May 9, May 11, May 16, May 18, May 25, and June 1, 2017, the defendant submitted urine specimens which tested positive for the presence of amphetamine in our local laboratory, and subsequently confirmed positive for methamphetamine by Alere Toxicology Services, Incorporated. Violation Number 2 Violation of Special Condition, by failing to participate in an approved treatment program. On or about June 10, 2017, the defendant was unsuccessfully discharged from residential substance abuse treatment at the Drug Abuse Foundation. Violation Number 3 Violation of Standard Condition, by failing to follow the instructions of the probation officer. On or about April 17, 2017, the defendant was instructed not to have contact with Michelle McPhearson without the permission of the United States Probation Office. The defendant admitted to having contact with this individual on June 17, 2017.

2. After consultation with his attorney, the Defendant announced to this Court that he wished to admit Violation Numbers 1 and 2 as set forth in the Petition. The government announced that it agreed to seek dismissal of Violation Number 3 of the Petition at sentencing. This Court questioned the Defendant on the record and made certain that he understood his rights in regards to an evidentiary hearing in respect to the alleged violations. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights in that regard and further understands that all that will remain will be for the District Court to conduct a sentencing hearing for final disposition in this matter.

3. Counsel for the parties agreed that the Court could take judicial notice of the facts set forth in the Petition and the Memorandum from United States Probation Officer David Farinacci dated June 23, 2017, which sets forth the essential elements of the violations to which Defendant is admitting. Therefore, the Court takes judicial notice of the facts set forth in the Petition and Memorandum, and finds that it sets forth a sufficient basis to support the Defendant's admission to Violation Numbers 1 and 2 as set forth in the Petition.

4. The possible maximum penalties faced by the Defendant were read into the record by the government, and Defendant stated that he understood those penalties.

ACCORDINGLY, based upon the Defendant's admission to Violation Numbers 1 and 2 of the Petition [D.E. 269] under oath, this Court recommends to the District Court that the Defendant be found to have violated his supervised release in respect to Violation Numbers 1 and 2, and that a sentencing hearing be set at the earliest convenience of the District Court for final disposition of this matter.

The parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Report and Recommendation within which to file objections, if any, with the Honorable Jose E. Martinez, the United States District Judge assigned to this case. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 59(b) (2), failure to file objections timely waives a party's right to review and bars the parties from attacking on appeal any legal rulings and factual findings contained herein.

DONE AND SUBMITTED.

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