Opinion
1:11-CR-9 (2)
11-17-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DONTE RAMONE BURTON
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARCIA A. CRONE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The court referred a petition alleging violations of supervised release conditions to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The court has received and considered the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence.
At the close of the revocation hearing, U.S. Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn recommended:
1. finding the Defendant violated the first allegation in the petition that he failed to follow a mandatory condition of release;
2. revoking the Defendant's supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583; and
3. sentencing the defendant to a term of 24 months' imprisonment, which shall run concurrently with 1:11-CR-15, with no supervised release to follow.
At the close of the revocation hearing, the Defendant, defense counsel and counsel for the Government each signed a standard form waiving their right to object to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in the magistrate judge's report, consenting to revocation of supervised release and imposition of the sentence recommended. Counsel for the Government verbally agreed not to prosecute Burton for any violations related to the events alleged in his petition. The Defendant also waived his right to be present with counsel and to speak at sentencing before the court imposes the recommended sentence.
Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. It is therefore
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is GRANTED and Donte Ramone Burton's supervised release is REVOKED.
Judgment and commitment will be entered separately, in accordance with the magistrate judge's recommendations. Consequently, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 176) is DENIED as MOOT.