Opinion
Case No. CR04-205-MJP.
May 4, 2006
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON VIOLATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
INTRODUCTION
I conducted a hearing on alleged violations of supervised release in this case on March 30, 2006. The United States was represented by Michael Lang. The defendant was represented by Lee Covel. The proceedings were recorded on disk.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
Defendant had been convicted of Conspiracy to Import Heroin on or about February 10, 2003. The Hon. Carol B. Amon of the U.S. District Court, New York Eastern sentenced Defendant to nine (9)months of confinement, followed by three (3) years of supervised release.
The conditions of supervised release included requirements that defendant comply with the standard 13 conditions.
DEFENDANT'S ADMISSION
USPO Michael Larsen alleged that Defendant violated the conditions of supervised release in five (5) respects:
(1) Filing a False or Fraudulent Income Tax Return on or about March 1, 2005, in violation 26 U.S.C. § 7206, and the mandatory condition not to commit another federal, state, or local crime.
(2) Failing to submit a truthful and complete written report for the Months of August through December 2004 and January through September 2005, by failing to disclose her employment with Holiday Resales Incorporated, in violation of standard condition number two.
(3) Failing to notify the probation officer ten days prior to any change in employment on or about August 2, 2004, in violation of standard condition number six.
(4) Failing to answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer on or about August 24, 2004, and continuing through on or about October 27, 2005, in violation of standard condition number three.
(5) Failing to notify the probation officer ten days prior to any change in residence on or about September 10, 2005, in violation of standard condition number six.
I advised the defendant of these charges and of her constitutional rights. At the March 30, 2006 hearing, defendant denied violation no. 1, admitted violation numbers 2-5, and waived any hearing as to whether they occurred. An evidentiary hearing as to violation no. 1 was set and then reset for May 9, 2006. The evidentiary hearing was later stricken when the government agreed to withdraw allegation number 1. The parties consented to having the matter set for a disposition hearing before the Hon. Marsha J. Pechman on June 5, 2006.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the foregoing, I recommend the court find that Defendant has violated the conditions of her supervised release as alleged above; dismiss allegation no. 1, and set the matter for a disposition hearing.Defendant has been released pending a final determination by the court.