Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No: CR 12-00495-5 SBA
Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SUPERVISED RELEASE vs.
BOBBY BARFIELD,
Dkt. 1306 Defendant.
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and 18 U.S.C. § 3401(i), the Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore (“Magistrate”) to conduct a supervised release revocation and disposition hearing. Referral Order, Dkt. 1304. The Magistrate conducted the hearing on July 12, 2017. Minute Order, Dkt. 1307.
At the hearing, Defendant admitted Charges One through Five of the Petition for Arrest Warrant for Offender under Supervision filed January 3, 2017 (“Petition”). Based on the undisputed factual allegations of the Petition and Defendant’s admission, the Magistrate found that the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant violated the conditions of supervision as alleged in Charges One through Five.
With the stipulation of the parties, the Magistrate found that: (1) the Grade of the violation is C; (2) the Criminal History Category is V; and (3) the resulting Guideline Range is 7 to 13 months. Consistent with the recommendation of the Probation Officer and the parties, the Magistrate recommended that this Court revoke Defendant’s supervised release and sentence him to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a period of time served (approximately 1 month), followed by supervised release for a period of 70 months with all previously-imposed conditions of supervision, as well as the added condition that he reside at a residential drug treatment facility for a period of up to 6 months.
*2 On July 7, 2017, the Magistrate filed her Findings and Recommendations Regarding Supervised Release, which memorializes the findings and recommendations summarized above. Dkt. 1306. A party may file written objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of the same. See 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Upon being so advised by the Magistrate at the hearing, both parties waived the right to file objections. In the absence of a timely objection, a district court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the record and finding no clear error, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly,
The Court finds that Defendant, Bobby Barfield, violated the conditions of his supervised release as alleged in Charges One through Five of the Petition. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the term of supervised release be REVOKED , and Defendant be sentenced to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a period of time served. Upon his release from custody, Defendant shall be placed on supervised release for a period of 70 months. While on supervised release, Defendant shall not commit another Federal, State, or local crime, shall comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court, shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance and submit to a drug test within 15 days of release on supervised release and two periodic drug tests thereafter, and shall comply with all previously imposed conditions, which are incorporated into this order by reference. Additionally, Defendant shall comply with the new condition that he reside at a residential drug treatment facility for a period of up to 6 months.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 7/12/17 ______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG Senior United States District Judge - 2 -