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. Rutledge

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

June 5, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY RUTLEDGE, 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 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 January 10, 2017, and a supplemental petition filed on March 27, 2017, 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 May 11, 2018, in accordance with Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.[1]

         On May 11, 2018, defendant Anthony Rutledge appeared in person with his appointed counsel, William Dazey. The government appeared by Kristina Korobov, 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. Rutledge of his right to remain silent, his right to counsel, and his right to be advised of the charges against him.

         2. A copy of the Petition was provided to Mr. Rutledge and his counsel, who informed the court they had reviewed the Petition and that Mr. Rutledge understood the violations alleged. Mr. Rutledge waived further reading of the Petition.

         3. The court advised Mr. Rutledge 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. Rutledge was advised of the rights he would have at a preliminary hearing. Mr. Rutledge 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. Rutledge orally waived his right to the preliminary hearing.

         4. The court advised Mr. Rutledge 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.

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

Violation Number Nature of Noncompliance
1 “You shall report to the probation officer in a manner and frequency directed by the court or probation officer.”
Anthony Rutledge appears to have absconded from his term of supervised release. This officer last had personal contact with the offender on December 6, 2016. On January 3, 2017, this officer spoke with the offender and directed him to report to the office, and he verbally indicated he would report, however, he never reported to the office. Since that time, this officer has made numerous phone calls to the offender's cell phone and left numerous voicemail messages directing him to report. This officer attempted to locate the offender at his last reported residence on January 5, 2017, and spoke to his sister. She stated she had not seen her brother “in days” and had no idea where to locate him. A letter was left for the offender which directed him to report to the probation office the next day. A similar voicemail message was left on his cell phone. To date, there has been no further contact with the offender and his whereabouts are unknown.
2 “The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance.”
Anthony Rutledge has submitted six positive urine screens: November 14, 2016, positive for marijuana; November 21, 2016, positive for marijuana; December 1, 2016, positive for marijuana; December 5, 2016, positive for marijuana and methamphetamine; December 15, 2016, ...

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.