U.S. v. King

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF v. CHARLES D. KING, DEFENDANT

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division at London

Date published: Jun 25, 2008

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 6:04-07-KKC (E.D. Ky. Jun. 25, 2008)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 6:04-07-KKC.

June 25, 2008

ORDER

KAREN CALDWELL, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition [R. 58] submitted by the Magistrate Judge in response to a Supervised Release Violation Report filed by the United States Probation Office. The Magistrate Judge noted that Defendant stipulated to all reported supervised release violations, that the United States recommended revocation and a sentence of imprisonment in the Court's discretion, and that Defendant requested a sentence at the lower end of the advisory Federal Sentencing Guidelines range. Recommended Disposition at 3. The Magistrate Judge stated that Defendant committed the following violations during his supervision: failing to abstain from alcohol on March 17, 2008; failing to participate in substance abuse treatment; and again failing to abstain from alcohol on May 17, 2008, which also resulted in state criminal charges. Id. at 2.

The Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant serve a 12.5-month term of imprisonment and that his supervision be reimposed for a term of 23.5 months. Id. at 4. The Magistrate Judge further recommended aggressive United States Probation Office oversight and mandated treatment upon Defendant's release. Neither party filed Objections to this Recommended Disposition.

Accordingly, the Court, being fully and sufficiently advised, HEREBY ORDERS that:

(1) The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court;

(2) The Defendant's supervised release is REVOKED;

(3) The Defendant shall be INCARCERATED for a term of imprisonment of 12.5 (twelve and one half) months;

(4) The sentence of imprisonment SHALL BE FOLLOWED by a new term of SUPERVISED RELEASE of 23.5 (twenty-three and one half) months, on the same terms currently in effect as recorded in the Revocation Judgment [R. 49];

(5) Upon Defendant's request, the Court will recommend BOP placement at a federal medical facility, given Defendant's particular health problems; and

(6) Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Opinion and Order.