Opinion
21-CR-20471-MOORE/Elfenbein
04-29-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RICKEY HERBERT DELANCEY, JR., Defendant.
HONORABLE K. MICHAEL MOORE, JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON SUPERVISED RELEASE VIOLATION
MARTY FULGUEIRA ELFENBEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge by the Honorable K. Michael Moore, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, to take all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to any and all violations of Supervised Release as to Defendant Rickey Herbert Delancey, Jr. ECF No. [47].
Upon referral of this matter to the undersigned, the matter was set for a status conference on April 25, 2024, for the purpose of scheduling an evidentiary hearing on the violations alleged in the Petition for Warrant for Summons for Offender Under Supervision (the “Petition”). ECF No. [48]. At the status conference, the Defendant, through counsel, informed the Court of his intention to admit the violations in the Petition. ECF No. [49]. The Defendant thereafter filed a Notice of Admission of Supervised Release Violations, admitting to the six violations of supervised release alleged in the Petition, ECF No. [40], and requesting that the Honorable K. Michael Moore set this matter for a final revocation hearing. ECF No. [50].
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned that the District Court accept Defendant's admission of guilt as to the six violations alleged in the Petition, ECF No. [40], and set those violations for a final revocation hearing.
A party shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation with the Honorable K. Michael Moore, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections will bar a de novo determination by the District Judge of anything in this recommendation and shall constitute a waiver of a party's “right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Harrigan v. Metro-Dade Police Dep't Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 2020).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.