Opinion
5:19-CR-135-KKC-MAS
08-26-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SHAWN LEE PERKINS, Defendants.
ORDER
KAREN K. CALDWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Matthew A. Stinnett's recommended disposition (DE 56) regarding reported violations of supervised release conditions by Defendant Shawn Lee Perkins.
On May 22, 2024, the United States Probation Office (“USPO”) reported that Perkins had been arrested on May 12, 2024 for driving under the influence and speeding 19 miles over the speed limit. (Violation 1, commission of another federal, state, or local crime.) The day after his arrest, Perkins admitted that he had used marijuana and confirmed that admission with a urine test. (Violations 2 and 3, unlawful use of a controlled substance, unlawfully possessing a controlled substance, and commission of a state, federal, or local crime.)
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 27.) While the Government moved for interim detention, Perkins did not seek release. Accordingly, the magistrate judge found that Perkins 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 3, 2024, the magistrate judge found that Perkins competently entered a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent stipulation to all three violations. (DE 55.) The Government moved to dismiss the first Count of Violation 3. The magistrate judge granted the Government's motion and, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583, now recommends that the Court revoke Perkins' supervised release, impose an incarceration period of time served, and reimpose a term of 30-month supervised release. Perkins 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 56) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion;
2) A judgment consistent with this order and the recommended disposition will be entered.