United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DEBRA McVICKER LYNCH, 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 March 7, 2013, 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 April 4, 2014, in accordance with Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 
On April 4, 2014, defendant Darrin Lamont Walton appeared in person with his appointed counsel, Bill Dazey. The government appeared by Brad Shepard, Assistant United States Attorney. The United States Probation Office ("USPO") appeared by Officer Diane Asher, 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. Walton 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. Walton 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. Walton and his counsel, who informed the court they had reviewed the Petition and that Mr. Walton understood the violations alleged. The court summarized the violations alleged. Mr. Walton waived further reading of the Petition.
3. The court advised Mr. Walton 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. Walton was advised of the rights he would have at a preliminary hearing. Mr. Walton stated that he wished to waive his right to a preliminary hearing.
4. Mr. Walton 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. Walton executed a written waiver of the preliminary hearing, which the court accepted.
5. The court advised Mr. Walton 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 Government demonstrated to the court that the interests of justice did not require a witness to appear.
6. Mr. Walton, by counsel, stipulated that he committed Violation Number 1 set forth in the Petition as follows:
7. The Court placed under oath and dir ectly inquired of Mr. Walton whether he admitted violation 1 of his supervised release set forth above. Mr. Walton admitted the violation as set forth above.
8. The Government orally moved to dismiss violations 2 through 6, and the motion was granted.
9. The parties and the USPO further stipulated that:
(a) The highest grade of Violation (Violation 1) is a Grade C violation ...