United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DENISE K. LaRUE, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the undersigned according to the Order entered by the Honorable Sarah Evans Barker, directing the duty magistrate judge to conduct a hearing on the Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision ("Petition") filed on November 21, 2012, and to submit proposed Findings of Facts and Recommendations for disposition under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3401(i) and 3583(e). Proceedings were held on March 5, 2014, in accordance with Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 
On March 5, 2014, defendant Justin Corbin appeared in person with his appointed counsel, Joe Cleary. The Government appeared by Michelle Brady, Assistant United States Attorney. The United States Probation Office ("USPO") appeared by Officer Jason Phillips, who participated in the proceedings.
The court conducted the following procedures in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583:
1. The court advised Mr. Corbin of his right to remain silent, his right to counsel, and his right to be advised of the charges against him. The court asked Mr. Corbin questions to ensure that he had the ability to understand the proceedings and his rights.
2. A copy of the Petition was provided to Mr. Corbin and his counsel, who informed the court they had reviewed the Petition and that Mr. Corbin understood the violations alleged. Mr. Corbin waived further reading of the Petition.
3. The court advised Mr. Corbin of his right to a preliminary hearing and its purpose in regard to the alleged violations of his supervised release specified in the Petition. Mr. Corbin was advised of the rights he would have at a preliminary hearing. Mr. Corbin stated that he wished to waive his right to a preliminary hearing.
4. Mr. Corbin stipulated that there is a basis in fact to hold him on the specifications of violations of supervised release as set forth in the Petition. Mr. Corbin executed a written waiver of the preliminary hearing, which the court accepted.
5. The court advised Mr. Corbin of his right to a hearing on the Petition and of his rights in connection with a hearing. The court specifically advised him that at a hearing, he would have the right to present evidence, to cross-examine any witnesses presented by the United States, and to question witnesses against him unless the court determined that the interests of justice did not require a witness to appear.
6. Mr. Corbin, by counsel, stipulated that he committed Violation Numbers 1, 2 and 3 set forth in the Petition as follows:
7. The court placed Mr. Corbin under oath and directly inquired of Mr. Corbin whether he admitted violations 1, 2, and 3 of his supervised release set forth above. Mr. Corbin admitted the violations as set forth above.
8. The Parties and the UPSO further stipulated that:
(a) The highest grade of Violation (Violation 1) is a Grade A violation ...