Opinion
Case No. 19-80037-TP-Rosenberg
01-25-2021
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON VIOLATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that the District Court find that the Defendant has violated the terms of his supervised release. On January 30, 2020, the U.S. Probation Office filed a Petition alleging three violations of the Defendant's terms of supervision ECF No. [2]:
1. Failing to refrain from violation of the law;Mr. Flood's term of supervised release is due to expire on April 6, 2022. A hearing was held on January 6, 2021, on the violation petition. Mr. Flood appeared by Zoom video conference and was represented by his counsel. He was advised of the alleged violations and of his right to contest those violations. He stated that he had been given sufficient time to discuss his options with counsel, that counsel had answered all of his questions, and that counsel had performed all of the tasks that Mr. Flood had requested. Defense counsel stipulated there was a factual basis for the allegations.
2. Failing to notify the probation officer within 72 hours of being arrest or questioned by a law enforcement officer; and
3. Failing to submit a truthful and complete written monthly report.
Defendant freely, knowingly, and voluntarily admitted to violations 1 and 3 through counsel, stated his wish to proceed to sentencing. The Defendant requests sentencing be set after January 19, 2021. The United States Attorney, with the concurrence of the Probation Officer, by agreement the government intends to dismiss violation 2 at sentencing. The Court granted the motion. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court accept Defendant's admissions and find the Defendant guilty of committing violations 1 and 3. The Court further RECOMMENDS that this matter be set down for sentencing before U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.
A party shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation with U.S. District Robin L. Rosenberg, within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. [] 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file timely objections may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings contained herein. See U.S. v. Warren, 687 F.2d 347, 348 (11th Cir. 1982) cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1087 (1983).
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, this 25th day of January, 2021.
/s/_________
BRUCE E. REINHART
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE