U.S. v. Armstrong

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JASON MICHAEL ARMSTRONG Defendant

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle

Date published: Feb 3, 2006

Case No. CR04-256-RSM (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. CR04-256-RSM.

February 3, 2006

SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

MARY THEILER, Magistrate Judge

An evidentiary hearing on supervised release revocation in this case was scheduled before me on February 3, 2006. The United States was represented by AUSA Leonie G.H. Grant and the defendant by Allen R. Bentley . The proceedings were digitally recorded.

Defendant had been sentenced on or about October 15, 2004 by the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez on a charge of Bank Larceny (2 counts), and sentenced to 3 months custody, 1 year supervised release.

The conditions of supervised release included the standard conditions plus the requirements that defendant submit to search, pay restitution in the amount of $1,485.96, provide access to financial information, notify probation officer of any material change in financial circumstances that might affect ability to pay restitution, and pay 10% of gross monthly household income toward total criminal monetary penalty. (Dkt. 109).

In an application dated January 4, 2006 (Dkt 130), U.S. Probation Officer Monique D. Neal alleged the following violations of the conditions of probation:

1. Failing to submit a truthful and complete written report within the first five days of each month, in violation of standard condition #2.

2. Failing to notify the probation officer at least 10 days prior to any change in residence, in violation of standard condition #6.

3. Failing to pay restitution in the amount of $1,485.96 during his term of supervised release in violation of special condition that he pay restitution in the amount of $1,485.96 during the period of supervision.

Defendant was advised in full as to those charges and as to his constitutional rights.

Defendant admitted alleged violations 2 and 3 and waived any evidentiary hearing as to whether they occurred. The government moved to dismiss violation 1. (Dkt. 138).

I therefore recommend the Court find defendant violated his supervised release as alleged in violations 2 and 3, that the Court dismiss violation 1, and that the Court conduct a hearing limited to the issue of disposition. The next hearing will be set before Judge Martinez.

Pending a final determination by the Court, defendant has been released on supervision.