United States v. LONG, 1:16-cr-00139

Long was convicted of possession with intent to distribute heroin and began supervised release July 25, 2019.
Probation filed a Petition and Supplemental Petition alleging violations for committing another crime and unlawful drug use; Long admitted violations 2 and 3 (drug use) at a revocation hearing.
The government moved to withdraw violation 1 (state marijuana charge); with that dismissal the advisory revocation guideline range fell from 30–37 months to 18–24 months.
At the hearing Long (with counsel) and the government jointly recommended an 18‑month custody term with no supervised release to follow; the magistrate issued a Report & Recommendation adopting that joint recommendation and the parties waived the 14‑day objection period.
Long later filed pro se motions seeking modification to 18 months home detention (no supervised release), arguing family needs and self‑medication; the Court denied those motions and affirmed the 18‑month custodial sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court should modify the agreed 18‑month custodial revocation sentence to home detention	The U.S. asserted the 18‑month custodial sentence was a product of a joint recommendation, appropriate given Long’s criminal‑history (Cat. V) and drug‑related violations; home detention is inadequate	Long requested 18 months home detention to support a partner and because his drug use was self‑medication for untreated depression	Denied — Court adopted the magistrate’s R&R; 18 months custody with no supervised release stands
Effect of waiver of 14‑day objection period to the magistrate’s R&R	Waiver bars collateral challenge to the R&R; parties knowingly agreed to the resolution	Long later filed pro se objections claiming he changed his mind and seeks relief	Even assuming no effective waiver, de novo review finds the 18‑month sentence reasonable; motions denied
Adequacy of non‑custodial alternatives (home detention) given violations	Custody necessary for deterrence and treatment; Long violated while on supervision and has a significant criminal history	Home detention would allow Long to support his partner and avoid incarceration	Court agreed with Government: home detention inadequate given facts; custody warranted

None (opinion relies on statutes, rules, Guidelines, and the parties’ positions; no controlling cases with official reporter citations were cited).