Opinion
WA:17-CR-00286(1)-ADA
07-16-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. (1) CHARLES JORDAN
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 April 29, 2024 the United States Probation Office filed a Petition For Warrant or Summons For Offender Under Supervision for Defendant (1) CHARLES JORDAN, which alleged that Jordan violated a condition of his supervised release and recommended that Jordan's supervised release be revoked (Clerk's Document No. 61). A warrant issued and Jordan was arrested. On June 17, 2024, Jordan appeared before a United States Magistrate Judge, was ordered detained, and a revocation of supervised release hearing was set.
Jordan appeared before the magistrate judge on July 16, 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 July 16, 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 Jordan, the magistrate judge recommends that this court revoke Jordan supervised release and that Jordan be sentenced in lieu of incarceration, he will spend SIX (6) months in a halfway house, subject to availability. During that six months, the Defendant is to have no contact with Desiree King or her family. There should be no term of supervised release to follow. The defendant should undergo a mental health evaluation and he should comply with whatever treatment and medication is recommended (Clerk's Document No. 74).
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 prsoperly notified of the consequences of a failure to file objections.
On July 16, 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. 71). 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. 74) is hereby ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED by this court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant (1) CHARLES JORDAN's term of supervised release is hereby REVOKED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant (1) CHARLES JORDAN be sentenced, and in lieu of incarceration, Jordan will spend SIX (6) months in a halfway house, subject to availability. During that six months, the Defendant is to have no contact with Desiree King or her family. There should be no term of supervised release to follow. The defendant should undergo a mental health evaluation and he should comply with whatever treatment and medication is recommended.