Opinion
WA:12-CR-00236(1)-ADA
03-19-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. (1) VALENTIN FELIPE DELOSSANTOS
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ALAN D. ALBRIGHT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the court is the above styled and numbered cause. On July 17, 2023 the United States Probation Office filed a Petition For Warrant or Summons For Offender Under Supervision for Defendant (1) VALENTIN FELIPE DELOSSANTOS, which alleged that Delossantos violated a condition of his supervised release and recommended that Delossantos 's supervised release be revoked (Clerk's Document No. 38). A warrant issued and Delossantos was arrested. On July 19, 2023, Delossantos appeared before a United States Magistrate Judge, was ordered detained, and a revocation of supervised release hearing was set.
Delossantos appeared before the magistrate judge on February 29, 2024, waived his right to a preliminary hearing and to be present before the United States District Judge at the time of modification of sentence, and consented to allocution before the magistrate judge. Following the hearing, the magistrate judge signed his report and recommendation on March 6, 2024, which provides that having carefully considered all of the arguments and evidence presented by the Government and Defendant, based on the original offense and the intervening conduct of Delossantos, the magistrate judge recommends that this court revoke Delossantos supervised release and that Delossantos's plea of TRUE be accepted, and that his sentencing phase be scheduled to occur at the same time as the sentencing phase of his co-pending case, Case Number 23-CR-131(1). (Clerk's Document No. 70).
A party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, and thereby secure a de novo review by the district court. See 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). A party's failure to timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a report and recommendation bars that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass 'n, 79 F.3d1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane). The parties in this cause were properly notified of the consequences of a failure to file objections.
On February 29, 2024, following the hearing on the motion to revoke supervised release, all parties signed a Waiver Of Fourteen Day Rule For Filing Objections To Report and Recommendation OfUnited States Magistrate Judge (Clerk's Document No. 69). The court, having reviewed the entire record and finding no plain error, accepts and adopts the report and recommendation filed in this cause.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed in this cause (Clerk's Document No. 70) is hereby ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED by this court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant (1) VALENTIN FELIPE DELOSSANTOS's term of supervised release is hereby REVOKED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant (1) VALENTIN FELIPE DELOSSANTOS's plea of TRUE be accepted, and that his sentencing phase be scheduled to occur at the same time as the sentencing phase of his co-pending case, Case Number 23-CR-131 (1).