USA v. Crook, 3:04-cr-58-MOC (2017)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20171219b23
Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2017
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. KEESLER , Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the government's "Motion For Revocation Of Conditional Release For Failure To Comply With Regimen And Treatment" (Document No. 140), filed on December 8, 2017. On December 15, 2017, the Court held a hearing on this motion. The Defendant appeared at the hearing represented by attorney Randolph M. Lee. The government was represent by Assistant United States Attorney Dana Washington. At the hearing, the Court cons
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. KEESLER , Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the government's "Motion For Revocation Of Conditional Release For Failure To Comply With Regimen And Treatment" (Document No. 140), filed on December 8, 2017. On December 15, 2017, the Court held a hearing on this motion. The Defendant appeared at the hearing represented by attorney Randolph M. Lee. The government was represent by Assistant United States Attorney Dana Washington. At the hearing, the Court consi..
More
ORDER
DAVID C. KEESLER, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the government's "Motion For Revocation Of Conditional Release For Failure To Comply With Regimen And Treatment" (Document No. 140), filed on December 8, 2017. On December 15, 2017, the Court held a hearing on this motion. The Defendant appeared at the hearing represented by attorney Randolph M. Lee. The government was represent by Assistant United States Attorney Dana Washington. At the hearing, the Court considered the testimony of U.S. Probation Officer Jackie N. Anderson, a letter dated December 5, 2017 prepared by Ms. Anderson setting forth the alleged violations of conditional release, the testimony of the Defendant, and the entire record in this matter.
For the reasons stated at the conclusion of the hearing, the Court finds that the Defendant has violated the terms of his conditional release in numerous ways, including by his failure to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment; and that his continued release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another. Defendant's conditional release is hereby REVOKED, and it is ORDERED that he be remanded to the custody of the Attorney General for placement in a suitable facility pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4243(g).
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
