Opinion
6:20-CR-50-REW
04-12-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN ALLEN PRICE, JR., Defendant.
ORDER
Robert E. Wier United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court following Defendant Stephen Allen Price Jr.'s final revocation hearing on five violations of conditions of supervised release. See DE 30 (Minute Entry); DE 31 (Recommended Disposition). This is the third instance of trouble for Price since the Court took jurisdiction in the case. The instant violations related to Price's failure to enroll and participate in a substance abuse treatment program, his failure to follow the instructions of his probation officer, and his use (thus illegal possession) of prohibited substances, namely buprenorphine (Suboxone), marijuana, and methamphetamine. See DE 481 at 2-3. Price, after being apprised of his rights, stipulated to the violations as charged at the hearing. Id. at 3-4. Judge Ingram recommended that the undersigned find Price guilty of committing the alleged violations, established by Price's own admissions, and sentence him to a carceral term of 21 months, with no supervision period to follow. Id. at 13. Judge Ingram also recommended that Price be designated to FCI Gilmer, where a family member is currently being housed. Id. Judge Ingram advised Price of his right to object to the recommendation. Id. The prescribed fourteen-day objection period has passed without any objection from Defendant Price or the United States. Further, Price waived his right to allocution. See DE 32 (Waiver).
The Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate[ judge]'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) (quoting Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 176 (6th Cir. 1996)) (brackets removed) (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.'”); United States v. Olano, 133 S.Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993) (distinguishing waiver and forfeiture); 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 accounted for all considerations in the record in a fitting and proper way. The Court does not disturb his analysis or judgment. Price has continued to persist, inexorably, in drug use and defiance of oversight. The case has its roots in meth trafficking, and Price's criminal history category (writ large and as developed further in this time in this District) drive not just the guidelines but the Court's assessment of the sentencing factors. The Court thus, with no objection from any party and on full review of the record and Judge Ingram's thorough treatment, ORDERS as follows:
1. The Court ADOPTS DE 31 and ADJUDGES Defendant Price guilty of the violations;
2. The Court REVOKES supervision and SENTENCES Price to 21 months' imprisonment, with no term of supervision to follow; and
3. The Court RECOMMENDS that BOP designate Defendant Price to FCI Gilmer.
A judgment will follow.