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. Hodson

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

March 12, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ROGER HODSON, Defendant.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARK J. DINSMORE, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the undersigned according to the Order entered by the Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson, directing the duty magistrate judge to conduct a hearing on the Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision ("Petition"), filed on February 26, 2014, 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 11, 2014, in accordance with Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.[1]

On March 11, 2014, defendant Roger Hodson appeared in person with his appointed counsel, Joseph Cleary. The government appeared by Gayle Helart, Assistant United States Attorney. The United States Probation Office ("USPO") appeared by Officer Chris Dougherty, 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. Hodson 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. Hodson 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. Hodson and his counsel, who informed the court they had reviewed the Petition and that Mr. Hodson understood the violations alleged.

3. The court advised Mr. Hodson 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. Hodson was advised of the rights he would have at a preliminary hearing. Mr. Hodson stated that he wished to waive his right to a preliminary hearing.

4. Mr. Hodson 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. Hodson executed a written waiver of the preliminary hearing, which the court accepted.

5. The court advised Mr. Hodson of his right to a hearing on the Petition and of his rights in connection with a hearing.

6. Mr. Hodson, by counsel, stipulated that he committed Violation Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 set forth in the Petition as follows:

The offender reported a home address at his father's residence in Franklin, Indiana. This officer made four attempts to locate the offender at this address between January 14, 2014, and February 19, 2014. At each attempt, the offender was not located. This officer has received information from both the offender and his family members that he has been staying at various residences in Franklin and Edinburgh, none of which have been reported to the probation office.
2 "The defendant shall not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered."
3 "The defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled substance."
4 "The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a ...

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.