Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Wing

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Laredo Division

June 19, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
STEVEN WING

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          J. SCOTT HACKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On June 1, 2017 and June 9, 2017, the undersigned held hearings on a Form 12 petition to revoke supervised release and related supplemental petitions. (Dkt. Nos. 91, 93, and 105). The Government was represented by Assistant United States Attorneys Alfredo De La Rosa and Chris dos Santos. Defendant, STEVEN WING, was represented by Assistant Federal Public Defender David Castillo.

         Defendant was sentenced on June 25, 2014, before The Honorable U.S. District Judge George P. Kazen in the Southern District of Texas-Laredo Division, after pleading guilty to attempting to possess with the intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana. This offense carried a statutory maximum imprisonment term of 20 years. The guideline imprisonment range, based on a total offense level of 23 and a criminal history category of II, was 51 to 63 months. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to 48 months confinement, along with 3 years of supervised release.

         On April 13, 2016, Defendant began service of the supervision term. On January 28, 2016, the Court modified Defendant's conditions to incorporate community confinement for a period of up to 180 days because Defendant reported that he would be homeless upon his release from BOP custody. (Dkt. No. 89). Soon thereafter, Defendant requested that his supervision be transferred to the Albany Division in the Northern District of New York. The probation office in the Albany Division required Defendant to modify his supervised release conditions before accepting supervision. (Dkt. No. 90 at 2). On April 14, 2016, Defendant agreed to these modifications. (Dkt. No. 90 at 5-6). On April 26, 2016, the Court ordered that Defendant's conditions of supervised release be modified. (Dkt. No. 90 at 4).

         On October 18, 2016, the instant petition was filed. (Dkt. No. 91). The supplemental petitions were filed on December 19, 2016, and January 17, 2017, respectively. (Dkt. Nos. 93 and 105). Therein, the petitions allege that Defendant violated the following conditions:

1) Failure to follow USPO's instructions; and
2) Failure to report as directed.

         The petitions are summarized as follows. On June 27, 2016, Defendant reported to the probation office in the Albany Division in the Northern District of New York. At that time, the probation officer explained to Defendant his conditions of release and the eight specific sex offender conditions that were added by the Court's later modification. Despite the probation officer's instructions, on several occasions during July 2016 and on at least one occasion during August 2016, Defendant accessed the internet utilizing his stepmother's tablet. Further, on December 19, 2016, Defendant was summoned to appear for a revocation proceeding at 1:00 p.m. on January 4, 2017. Defendant failed to do so.

         At the June 1 st revocation hearing, Defendant pleaded true to the first and second allegations. After further inquiry, the undersigned determined that there was a factual basis in the record to support Defendant's plea of true to these allegations.

         Because of the facts mentioned above, at the June 9th revocation hearing, the undersigned advised that he would be recommending that Defendant be committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for 6 months to serve. The undersigned stated that he would be recommending that Defendant be placed back on supervised release until the original expiration date of April 12, 2019, under the same terms and conditions that were previously imposed, except that, when Defendant is released from the Bureau of Prison's custody, Defendant shall be placed in a reentry center for a period of 6 months in Laredo, Texas. Finally, the undersigned stated that he would be recommending that Defendant's conditions of supervised release include the specific sex offender conditions of supervised release that were added through modification in April 2016.

         Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendant's plea of true to the first and second allegations, as set forth in the petitions, be ACCEPTED.

         Based upon Defendant's plea of true to these allegations, it is further RECOMMENDED that the Court find that Defendant violated the conditions of his supervised release.

         It is further RECOMMENDED that Defendant's supervised release be REVOKED.

         It is further RECOMMENDED that Defendant be committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.