Opinion
5:16-CR-39-KKC-MAS
08-27-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FRUQUAN VINCENT GOINS, Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Matthew A. Stinnett's recommended disposition (DE 77) regarding reported violations of supervised release conditions by Defendant Fruquan Vincent Goins.
On June 21, 2024, the United States Probation Office (“USPO”) reported that Goins has committed two violations of his supervised release: unlawful use of a controlled substance (Violation 1) and committing a federal, state, or local crime (Violation 2). On June 17, 2024, Goins submitted to a urine test which initially tested positive cocaine and methamphetamine using an instant testing device. After further analysis, the test results were negative for methamphetamine. Use of cocaine is a violation of the condition prohibiting the use of a controlled substance (Violation 1, Grade C) and a violation of the condition requiring compliance with all federal, state, and local (Violation 2, Grade B).
At an initial appearance on the supervised release violations, the magistrate judge found probable cause that the allegations in the violation report were true. (DE 72.) While the Government moved for interim detention, Goins did not seek release. Accordingly, the magistrate judge found that Goins failed to carry his release burden under Rule 32.1(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) and ordered that he remain in custody pending the final hearing.
At the final hearing on July 22, 2024, the magistrate judge found that Goins competently entered a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent stipulation to all three violations. (DE 8294.) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583, the magistrate judge now recommends that the Court revoke Goin's supervised release, impose an incarceration period of nine months, and reimpose a term of 12-month supervised release, subject to the original terms of his supervision and in addition to the term that Goins shall complete ninety days of inpatient substance use disorder treatment immediately following his term of imprisonment. Goins has not filed any objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation within the allotted time of fourteen days nor has he requested an extension of time to file his objections.
Having reviewed the recommendation and agreeing with its analysis, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1) The recommended disposition (DE 77) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion;
2) A judgment consistent with this order and the recommended disposition will be entered.