KENNARD FOSTER, Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Order entered by the Honorable Sarah Evans Barker, Judge, on September 25, 2006, designating this Magistrate Judge to conduct hearings on the Petition for Summons or Warrant for Offender Under Supervision filed with the Court on April 5, 2006, and to submit to Judge Barker proposed Findings of Facts and Recommendations for disposition under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 3401(i) and 3583(e). All proceedings were held on September 25, 2006 in accordance with Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Scroggins appeared in person with his appointed counsel, William Marsh, the Indiana Federal Community Defender. The government appeared by James Warden, Assistant United States Attorney. U.S. Parole and Probation appeared by Dwight Wharton, U.S. Parole and Probation officer, who participated in the proceedings.
On September 25, 2006, the Court conducted the following procedures in accordance with Rule 32.1(a)(1) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Title 18 U.S.C. § 3583:
1. William Marsh, the Indiana Federal Community Defender, was present and appointed by the Court to represent Mr. Scroggins in regard to the pending Petition for Revocation of Supervised Release.
2. A copy of the Petition for Revocation of Supervised Release was provided to Mr. Scroggins and his counsel. The Magistrate Judge summarized the specification of the alleged violations and, further, Mr. Scroggins and his counsel informed the Court that they had read and understood the specification of violations and waived further reading thereof.
3. Mr. Scroggins was advised of his right to a preliminary hearing and its purpose in regard to the alleged specified violations of his supervised release contained in the pending Petition.
4. Mr. Scroggins would have a right to question witnesses against him at the preliminary hearing unless the Court, for good cause shown, found that justice did not require the appearance of a witness or witnesses.
5. Mr. Scroggins had the opportunity to appear at the preliminary hearing and present evidence on his own behalf.
6. If the preliminary hearing resulted in a finding of probable cause that Mr. Scroggins had violated an alleged condition or conditions of him supervised release set forth in the Petition, he would be held for a revocation hearing before the undersigned Magistrate Judge, in accordance with Judge Barker's designation entered on September 25, 2006.
7. Mr. Marsh stated that Jody Scroggins would stipulate there is a basis in fact to hold him on the specifications of violation of supervised release set forth in the Petition. Mr. Scroggins executed a written waiver of the preliminary examination, which was accepted by the Court.
8. Mr. Scroggins, by counsel, stipulated that he committed specifications of violations set forth in the Petition for Warrant or Summons for an Offender Under Supervision, filed with the Court as follows: Violation Number Nature of Noncompliance 1 The defendant shall notify the probation officer within 72 hours of any change in residence or employment. On July 14, 2005, Mr. Scroggins's conditions were modified to include up to 180 days residency at the Volunteers of America (VOA) Community Corrections Center. The modification was ordered based on the following violations: alcohol relapse; changing employment without notification; arrest in Hancock County for Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated; and reporting to the probation officer inebriated. Please see Request for Modifying the Conditions of Supervision dated July 14, 2005. The defendant voluntarily resided at the Sheltered Housing Program component of VOA until he was designated. According to his substance abuse counselor and case manager, Mr. Scroggins progressed very well during his residency. Due to his level of progress, he was released from VOA approximately three weeks early on December 16, 2005. Mr. Scroggins was employed at Aramark Uniform Services in Indianapolis throughout most of his residency at VOA. On or about January 13, 2006, was the last day he reported for work. On January 20, 2006, the defendant mailed his uniform back to his employer, indicating he had quit the job. Mr. Scroggins failed to notify the probation officer of his change in employment until the matter was addressed was him during a home visit on January 20, 2006. He had no other employment at the time he quit Aramark Uniform Services. 2 The defendant shall report to the probation officer as directed by the court or probation officer, and shall submit a truthful and complete written report within the first five days of each month. Beginning in March 2006, several telephone messages were left for Mr. Scroggins directing him to contact and/or report to the probation officer immediately. In addition, a home visit was made on March 15, 2006, at 7:30 a.m., but no one answered the door or telephone. An Appointment Notice was left inside the front door instructing him to report to the Probation Office the following morning. He failed to report as instructed. After contacting the defendant's mother on March 16, 2006, Mr. Scroggins left the probation officer a voice message indicating he did not receive the Appointment Notice. Another voice message was left by the probation officer on March 20, 2006, instructing him to report the following morning. He failed to report. An Appointment Notice was subsequently mailed to Mr. Scroggins scheduling an office visit on March 27, 2006. He failed to report. The defendant subsequently left a voice message on March 28, 2006, acknowledging he "missed another appointment yesterday." It was confirmed with the defendant's mother he has not changed his address or telephone number. In addition to the above, Mr. Scroggins failed to submit his February Monthly Supervision Report. On March 28, 2006, contact was made with the defendant's Hancock County probation officer who advised Mr. Scroggins also failed to report for a pre-scheduled office visit. She added the defendant was not in compliance with the court-ordered community service obligation. The latter information is provided to simply demonstrate a pattern of non-reporting that has been established by Mr. Scroggins. 3 The defendant shall participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug and/or alcohol abuse, as directed by the probation officer. Mr. Scroggins is enrolled in two substance abuse counseling sessions and one random urine collection per month. Since his release from VOA, he failed to attend both of his counseling sessions in March and he missed the following random urine collection dates: 3/23/06; 3/26/06; and 3/30/06. The Court placed Mr. Scroggins under oath and directly inquired of Mr. Scroggins whether he admitted violation of the specification of his supervised release set forth above. Mr. Scroggins stated that he admitted the above violations as set forth. The Court now finds there is a basis in fact for his admissions and accepts same.
Counsel for the parties further stipulated to the following:
1) Mr. Scroggins has a relevant criminal history category of II, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a).
2) The most serious grade of violation committed by Mr. Scroggins constitutes a Grade C violation, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(b).
3) Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a) upon revocation of supervised release, the range of imprisonment applicable to Mr. Scroggins is 4-10 months.
The parties agreed on the appropriate disposition of the case as follows:
a. The defendant be sentenced to a period of confinement of four months to the custody of the Attorney General, to be followed by one year of supervised release, with the same conditions previously entered at the time of sentencing.
b. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Mr. Scroggins be designated by the Attorney General of the United States and the Bureau of Prisons to the Farm Camp at Terre Haute, Indiana.
The Court having heard the evidence and/or arguments of Mr. Scroggins, his counsel and the government, now finds that Mr. Scroggins violated the specified conditions of supervised release as delineated above in the Petition to Revoke his supervised release.
Mr. Scroggins's supervised release is therefore REVOKED and he is sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General or his designee for a period of four months, to be followed by one year of supervised release, with the same conditions previously entered at the time of sentencing. It is recommended that Mr. Scroggins be designated to the Farm Camp at Terre Haute, Indiana.
The Magistrate Judge requests that Mr. Wharton, U.S. Parole and Probation Officer, prepare for submission to the Honorable Sarah Evans Barker, Judge, as soon as practicable, a supervised release revocation judgment, in accordance with these findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendation.
Counsel for the parties and Mr. Scroggins stipulated in open court waiver of the following:
1. Notice of the filing of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation;
2. Objection to the Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b),
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and S.D.Ind.L.R.72.1(d)(2),
Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
Counsel for the parties and Mr. Scroggins entered the above stipulations and waivers after being notified by the undersigned Magistrate Judge that the District Court may refuse to accept the stipulations and waivers and conduct a revocation hearing pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3561 et seq. and Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and may reconsider the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, including making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendation upon which he may reconsider.
WHEREFORE, the U.S. Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS the Court adopt the above recommendation revoking Jody E. Scroggins's supervised release and the sentence imposed of imprisonment of four months in the custody of the Attorney General or his designee, to be followed by one year of supervised release, with the same conditions previously entered at the time of sentencing.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.