Opinion
Case No. 2:12-cr-218
2013-10-21
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM DAVID TAYLOR, SR., Defendants.
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant William David Taylor's Amended Motion Requesting Copy of Probation Officer's File. (Doc. 44). Defendant takes issue with the fact that he received a 2-point enhancement to his criminal history in his Presentence Report ("PSR"), on the grounds that he was under federal supervision at the time he committed the criminal conduct that forms the basis of this case. (Doc. 44 at 1). Defendant insists that he needs access to Probation Officer Brian Hunt's file in order to dispute this enhancement. (Id.).
The United States does not object "to a limited disclosure of Probation Officer Brian Hunt's records regarding his previous supervision of Defendant . . . to [Defendant's] current counsel," but does oppose a general public disclosure of the file. (Doc. 45 at 1).
In addition, however, the United States argues that release of the file is unnecessary, because the public records of this Court amply demonstrate that Defendant was in custody and/or under federal supervision in the prior case from September 18, 2007 until April 9, 2009. Accordingly, the United States asserts that Probation Officer's file adds no pertinent information to the Sentencing Guidelines calculation.
The United States is correct that the Probation Officer's file cannot shed any light on the issue raised by Defendant. Its release would be superfluous and futile. Defendant was sentenced in the prior case to four months in prison, with one year of supervised release, on September 18, 2007. (See Judgment, Doc. 20, United States v. Taylor, No. 2:06-CR-064 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2007)). Defendant was ordered to report for service of his sentence on December 12, 2007. (See id., Motion, Doc. 23, at 1). The offense in this case was committed on April 13, 2008, (Indictment, Doc. 2, at 2; Jury Verdict, Doc. 36, at 1), well within the period during which Defendant remained under supervised release.
Furthermore, Defendant has directed the Court to no authority which holds that the right to "present any information to mitigate the sentence" under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 also "embodies a right to unfettered access to a probation officer's file to search for that information." United States v. Johnson, 356 F. App'x 785, 789 (6th Cir. 2009) (affirming denial of defendant's request for probation officer's file, in sentencing proceeding for violation of supervised release under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(E)).
Defendant has no right to the file, and has given no valid reason for requesting it. Defendant's Amended Motion (Doc. 44) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE