Opinion
WA:23-CR-00060(1)-ADA
03-21-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. (1) EMMANUEL FLOYD
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 January 11, 2024 the United States Probation Office filed a Petition For Warrant or Summons For Offender Under Supervision for Defendant (1) EMMANUEL FLOYD, which alleged that Floyd violated a condition of his supervised release and recommended that Floyd's supervised release be revoked (Clerk's Document No. 3). A warrant issued and Floyd was arrested. On February 9, 2024, Floyd appeared before a United States Magistrate Judge, was ordered detained, and a revocation of supervised release hearing was set.
Floyd appeared before the magistrate judge on March 19, 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 20, 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 Floyd, the magistrate judge recommends that this court revoke Floyd supervised release and that Floyd be sentenced to TIME SERVED, with a term of NINE YEARS supervised release to follow the term of imprisonment. As a special condition of that term of supervised release, the Defendant shall serve 90 days of home confinement with radio frequency monitoring. The original conditions of supervised release shall be reimposed. (Clerk's Document No. 22).
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 March 19, 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. 20). 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. 22) is hereby ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED by this court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant (1) EMMANUEL FLOYD's term of supervised release is hereby REVOKED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant (1) EMMANUEL FLOYD be sentenced to TIME SERVED, with a term of supervised release of NINE YEARS to follow the term of imprisonment. As a special condition of that term of supervised release, the Defendant shall serve 90 days of home confinement with radio frequency monitoring. The original conditions of supervised release shall be reimposed.