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. Cook

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

March 5, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL A. COOK, Defendant.

          MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Debra McVicker Lynch United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter is before the undersigned according to the Order entered by the Honorable William T. Lawrence, directing the duty magistrate judge to conduct a hearing on the Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision (“Petition”) filed on January 25, 2018, 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 February 26, 2018, in accordance with Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.[1]

         On February 26, 2018, defendant Michael A. Cook appeared in person with his appointed counsel, Gwendolyn Beitz. The government appeared by James Warden, Assistant United States Attorney. The United States Probation Office (“USPO”) appeared by Officer Brent Witter, 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. Cook 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. Cook 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. Cook and his counsel, who informed the court they had reviewed the Petition and that Mr. Cook understood the violations alleged. Mr. Cook waived further reading of the Petition.
3. The court advised Mr. Cook 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. Cook was advised of the rights he would have at a preliminary hearing. Mr. Cook stated that he wished to waive his right to a preliminary hearing.
4. Mr. Cook 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. Cook executed a written waiver of the preliminary hearing, which the court accepted.
5. The court advised Mr. Cook 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. Cook, by counsel, stipulated that he committed Violation Numbers 1 and 2 set forth in the Petition as follows:
Violation Number Nature of Noncompliance
1 “The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance.”
On January 2, 2018, Mr. Cook provided a urine specimen which confirmed positive for methamphetamine by Alere Labatory.
As previously reported to the Court, on June 10, 17, 23, July 4, 19, 22, August 11, 17, 20, 25, and September 2, 5, 2016, Mr. Cook provided urine specimens ...

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.