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. Williams

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

January 31, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
PERCY E. WILLIAMS, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          TIM A. BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On January 10, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision filed on May 30, 2018. Defendant Williams appeared in person with his appointed counsel William Dazey. The government appeared by Barry Glickman, Assistant United States Attorney. U.S. Parole and Probation appeared by Officer Jason Phillips.

         The Court conducted the following procedures in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583:

         1. The Court advised Defendant Williams of his rights and provided him with a copy of the petition. Defendant Williams orally waived his right to a preliminary hearing.

         2. After being placed under oath, Defendant Williams admitted violation 1, and 2. [Docket No. 4.]

         3. The allegations to which Defendant admitted, as fully set forth in the petition, are:

         Violation

Number

Nature of Noncompliance

1

The defendant report to the probation officer as directed by the court or probation officer.”

Mr. Williams failed to report to the probation office on May 7, and 18, 2018. In addition, multiple attempts to reach the offender at home and via telephonic means have failed. The offender has not been in contact witht his officer since April 19, 2018, and his current whereabouts is unknown.

2

The defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, vocational training, or other acceptable reasons.”

The offender has failed to provide verification to the probation officer that he is lawfully employed or actively seeking lawful employment.

         4. The parties stipulated that:

(a) The highest grade of violation is a Grade C violation.
(b) Defendant's criminal history category is VI.
(c) The range of imprisonment applicable upon revocation of supervised release, therefore, is 8 to 14 months' imprisonment.

         5. Government recommended a sentence of sixty (60) days incarceration with three (3) years of supervised release including up to one hundred and eighty (180) days of GPS monitoring and home detention. Defendant recommended three (3) years of supervised release including up to one hundred and eighty (180) days of GPS monitoring and home detention. The Magistrate Judge, having considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and as more fully set forth on the record, finds that the Defendant violated the conditions in the petition, that his supervised release should be revoked, and that he should be sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General or his designee for a period of sixty (60) days with three (3) years of supervised release to follow. In addition to the mandatory conditions of supervision, the following conditions of supervised release will be imposed:

1. You shall report to the probation office in the judicial district to which you are released within 72 hours of release from the custody of the Bureau of ...

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.