Opinion
6:20-CR-24-REW-HAI
08-19-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KELLY J. GUDGER, JR., Defendant.
ORDER
ROBERT E. WIER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court following Defendant Kelly J. Gudger's final revocation hearing on alleged supervised release violation, specifically, for committing state crimes (second-degree assault, fourth-degree assault, and first-degree strangulation) while on supervised release. See DE 74 (Minute Entry); DE 76 (Recommended Disposition). After lengthy competency proceedings, including restoration, Judge Ingram held the final evidentiary hearing, where the Government presented three witnesses. See DE 74; DE 76. After conducting the final hearing, Judge Ingram recommended that the undersigned find Gudger guilty of the charged violation, revoke his supervision, sentence him to a term of imprisonment of fifty-four months plus six months of supervised release, and require Gudger to serve the supervised release term at a specific halfway house in Manchester, Kentucky, in order to receive mental health treatment. See DE 76 at 15-16. Judge Ingram informed Gudger of his right to object to the recommendation. See id. at 16. Gudger waived allocution. See DE 77 (Waiver). The prescribed fourteen-day objection period has passed, and neither Gudger nor the United States objected to the Recommended Disposition.
The Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v. Arn, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472 (1985); see also Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting that the Sixth Circuit has “long held that, when a defendant does ‘not raise an argument in his objections to the magistrate[ judge]'s report and recommendation . . . he has forfeited his right to raise this issue on appeal.'”) (quoting Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 176 (6th Cir. 1996)); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2)-(3) (limiting de novo review duty to “any objection” filed); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (limiting de novo review duty to “those portions” of the recommendation “to which objection is made”).
Judge Ingram fully accounted for all matters of import on a well-developed record. Both sides had thorough input in the zealously advocated case. The Court thus, with no objection from any party and on full review of the record and Judge Ingram's thoughtful and complete treatment, ORDERS as follows:
1. The Court ADOPTS DE 76 and ADJUDGES Gudger guilty of the charged violation (to wit, the three alleged state crimes), consistent with that recommendation;
2. The Court REVOKES supervision and SENTENCES Gudger to a term of imprisonment of fifty-four months, to be followed by six months of supervised release under the conditions set forth in Gudger's prior Judgment;
3. Gudger SHALL serve the supervised release term at a halfway house in Manchester, Kentucky, and receive mental health treatment pursuant to the existing Special Condition #2 of his Judgment (and to clarify, the Court further directs that USPO arrange this placement and require active mental health treatment for Gudger during the remaining supervision term, and Gudger shall cooperate in good faith in and comply with all terms of that halfway house placement and treatment); and
4. The Court will enter an appropriate revocation judgment.