Opinion
13-cr-20630-MOORE
09-22-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. CALVIN MATCHETT, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON SUPERVISED RELEASE VIOLATION
LAUREN F. LOUIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This cause has been referred to the undersigned to take all necessary and proper action as required with respect to any violations of Supervised Release as to Defendant Ca;vin Matchett (ECF No. 87).
Upon referral from District Court Judge K. Michael Moore, the matter was set for status conference for the purpose of scheduling an evidentiary hearing on the violations (ECF No. 89). A telephone status conference was conducted on September 9, 2022 and was attended by counsel for Defendant and counsel for the government. A second status conference was scheduled to afford additional time for the parties to whether the violations would be admitted or if an evidentiary hearing was necessary.
Following the hearing, Defendant filed a Notice that represents that Defendant Matchett intends to admit to the violations of conditions of supervised release alleged in the Petition (ECF No. 91). Accordingly, no evidentiary hearing is warranted for the purpose of determining probable cause.
Upon consideration of the Petition, Defendant's Notice and with the benefit of the hearing, it is the recommendation of the undersigned that the Court set the matter for final hearing and accept Defendant's admission of guilt of the Supervised Release Violation Nos. 1 - 4 as charged in the Petition (ECF No. 80).
The parties will have fourteen days from the date of service of this Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, for consideration by the United States District Judge. Failure to timely file objections will bar a de novo determination by the District Judge of anything in this recommendation and shall constitute a waiver of a party's “right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Harrigan v. Metro-Dade Police Dep't Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 2020).