United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
McVicker Lynch, United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the undersigned according to the Order
entered by the Honorable Tanya Walton Pratt, directing the
duty magistrate judge to conduct a hearing on the Petition
for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision
(“Petition”) filed on February 8, 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 March 19, 2018, in accordance with
Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
March 19, 2018, defendant Michael S. Lowe appeared in person
with his appointed counsel, Gwendolyn Beitz. The government
appeared by Steve DeBrota, Assistant United States Attorney.
The United States Probation Office (“USPO”)
appeared by Officer James Thomas, who participated in the
court conducted the following procedures in accordance with
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a)(1) and 18
U.S.C. § 3583:
court advised Mr. Lowe 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. Lowe questions to ensure
that he had the ability to understand the proceedings and his
copy of the Petition was provided to Mr. Lowe and his
counsel, who informed the court they had reviewed the
Petition and that Mr. Lowe understood the violations alleged.
Mr. Lowe waived further reading of the Petition.
court advised Mr. Lowe 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. Lowe was
advised of the rights he would have at a preliminary hearing.
Mr. Lowe stated that he wished to waive his right to a
Lowe 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. Lowe waived the right to a
court advised Mr. Lowe 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.
Lowe, by counsel, stipulated that he committed Violation
Number 2 (in part) which was set forth in the Petition as
Nature of Noncompliance
“The defendant shall not possess or
use a computer, including any
Internet-enable device, unless approved by
the probation officer.”
The offender admitted to using a non-approved
Internet-enabled streaming device to access adult
and child pornography.
After ensuring that Mr. Lowe was knowingly and voluntarily
waiving his right to a hearing on the alleged violations, the
Court placed Mr. Lowe under oath and directly inquired of Mr.
Lowe whether he admitted violation 2 his supervised release
set forth above. Mr. Lowe admitted violation 2 as set forth
above to the extent he admitted he had used or possessed an
Internet-enabled device without the approval of the probation
government moved to dismiss violations 1 and 3 and the same
parties and the USPO further stipulated that:
(a) The highest grade of Violation (Violation 2) is a Grade C
violation (U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(2)).
(b) Mr. Lowe's criminal history category is I.
(c) The range of imprisonment applicable upon revocation of
Mr. Coleman's supervised release, therefore, is 3 - 9
months' imprisonment. (S ...