U.S. v. Stacy, 11-18-ART-(2). (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. Kentucky
Number: infdco20160427c83
Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 26, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 26, 2016
Summary: ORDER AMUL R. THAPAR , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on defendant Jamie Wayne Stacy's alleged violations of the terms of his supervised release. Pursuant to the Court's referral order, R. 116, Magistrate Judge Hanly Ingram filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") finding that the government had established that the defendant committed the violations by a preponderance of the evidence. R. 128 at 5. Based on this finding, Judge Ingram recommended that Stacy be sentenced to
Summary: ORDER AMUL R. THAPAR , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on defendant Jamie Wayne Stacy's alleged violations of the terms of his supervised release. Pursuant to the Court's referral order, R. 116, Magistrate Judge Hanly Ingram filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") finding that the government had established that the defendant committed the violations by a preponderance of the evidence. R. 128 at 5. Based on this finding, Judge Ingram recommended that Stacy be sentenced to ..
More
ORDER
AMUL R. THAPAR, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on defendant Jamie Wayne Stacy's alleged violations of the terms of his supervised release. Pursuant to the Court's referral order, R. 116, Magistrate Judge Hanly Ingram filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") finding that the government had established that the defendant committed the violations by a preponderance of the evidence. R. 128 at 5. Based on this finding, Judge Ingram recommended that Stacy be sentenced to twenty-three months incarceration, with twelve months of supervised release to follow. Id. at 11. Judge Ingram also recommended that the Court modify Stacy's supervised release terms to include the condition that Stacy, upon release from custody, enroll in, and complete, an inpatient substance abuse treatment program with the length of such program left to the discretion of the USPO. Id. Neither the United States nor the defendant filed any objections to the R&R, and the time for filing any objections has expired. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) The R&R, R. 128, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
(2) The defendant's oral motion to dismiss the violation added in the addendum is DENIED AS MOOT.
(3) The Court will issue a separate judgment.
Source: Leagle
