Opinion
CR 17-16-GF-BMM-JTJ
06-30-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARTY JON KROMINGA, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
John Johnston United States Magistrate Judge
I. Synopsis
Defendant Marty Jon Krominga (Krominga) has been accused of violating the conditions of his supervised release. Krominga admitted alleged violations 1 and 5. Krominga denied alleged violations 2 and 3. The government satisfied its burden of proof with respect to alleged violations 2 and 3. The Court dismissed alleged violation 4 on the government's motion. Krominga's supervised release should be revoked. Krominga should be placed in custody for 8 months, with no supervised release to follow.
II. Status
Krominga pleaded guilty to being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm on May 9, 2017. (Doc. 88). The Court sentenced Krominga to 28 of custody, followed by 2 years of supervised release. (Doc. 180). Krominga's current term of supervised release began on September 20, 2019. (Doc. 287 at 1).
Petition
The United States Probation Office filed a Second Amended Petition on June 7, 2021, requesting that the Court revoke Krominga's supervised release. (Doc. 287). The Second Amended Petition alleged that Krominga had violated the conditions of his supervised release: 1) by using methamphetamine on three separate occasions; 2) by committing another crime; and 3) by consuming alcohol.
Initial appearance
Krominga appeared before the undersigned for his initial appearance on the Second Amended Petition on June 29, 2021. Krominga was represented by counsel. Krominga stated that he had read the petition and that he understood the allegations. Krominga waived his right to a preliminary hearing. The parties consented to proceed with the revocation hearing before the undersigned.
Revocation hearing
The Court conducted a revocation hearing on June 29, 2021. Krominga admitted that he had violated the conditions of his supervised release by using methamphetamine on March 19, 2021, as alleged in violation 1. Krominga also admitted that he had consumed alcohol. The government satisfied its burden of proof with respect to alleged violations 2 and 3. The Court dismissed alleged violation 4 on the government's motion. The violations that Krominga admitted and that the government proved are serious and warrant revocation of Krominga's supervised release.
Krominga's violations are Grade C violations. Krominga's criminal history category is IV. Krominga's underlying offense is a Class C felony. Krominga could be incarcerated for up to 24 months. Krominga could be ordered to remain on supervised release for up to 24 months, less any custody time imposed. The United States Sentencing Guidelines call for a term of custody of 6 to 12 months.
III. Analysis
Krominga's supervised release should be revoked. Krominga should be incarcerated for 8 months, with no supervised release to follow. This sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary.
IV. Conclusion
The Court informed Krominga that the above sentence would be recommended to United States District Judge Brian Morris. The Court also informed Krominga of his right to object to these Findings and Recommendations within 14 days of their issuance. The Court explained to Krominga that Judge Morris would consider a timely objection before making a final determination on whether to revoke his supervised release and what, if any, sanction to impose. The Court FINDS:
That Marty Jon Krominga violated the conditions of his supervised release: by using methamphetamine on three separate occasions; and by consuming alcohol.
The Court RECOMMENDS:
That the District Court revoke Krominga's supervised release and commit Krominga to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons for 8 months, with no supervised release to follow.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
The parties may serve and file written objections to the Findings and Recommendations within 14 days of their entry, as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A United States district court judge will make a de novo determination regarding any portion of the Findings and Recommendations to which objection is made. The district court judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Findings and Recommendations. Failure to timely file written objections may bar a de novo determination by the district court judge, and may waive the right to appear and allocute before a district court judge.