Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 6, 2010

RE: JASON ALAN BERRYHILL

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM

Honorable Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge Sacramento, California

CORRECTION TO JUDGMENT

Your Honor:

On October 20, 2009, Berryhill was sentenced to a 4-month term of imprisonment and a 12-month term of Supervised Release, upon his conviction for a violation of 18 USC 641 Theft of Government Property. Berryhill began his 12-month term of Supervised Release on April 19, 2010. Among the special conditions ordered by the Court, Berryhill was ordered to comply with home incarceration for a period of 120 consecutive days, to commence when directed by the probation officer. After reviewing the presentence report and the Judgment, it appears the language of this special condition should have been consistent with home detention instead of home incarceration. This discrepancy was recently discovered during Berryhill's enrollment in the electronic monitoring program.

Home incarceration is considered the most restrictive component of the home confinement program. It requires 24-hour-a-day lock-down, except for medical necessities and court appearances, or other activities specifically approved by the Court. Home detention requires a participant to remain at home at all times except for pre-approved and scheduled absences for employment, education, religious activities, treatment, attorney visits, court appearances, court-ordered obligations, or other activities as approved by the probation officer. The recommendation in the presentence report was for a period of home detention.

Both counsel and the releasee have been informed of the discrepancy, and all agree the special condition should be specified as home detention. It appears this was an oversight; therefore, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, it is respectfully recommended the Court correct and amend the criminal judgment as noted below, and direct the clerk to produce an amended judgment reflecting this correction.

The defendant shall comply with the conditions of home detention for a period of 120 consecutive days, to commence when directed by the probation officer. During this time, the defendant will remain at his place of residence except for employment and other activities approved in advance by the defendant's probation officer. The defendant will maintain telephone service at his place of residence without an answering device, call forwarding, a modem, caller ID, call waiting, or a cordless telephone for the above period.

At the discretion of the probation officer, the defendant shall wear an electronic monitoring device and follow electronic monitoring procedures as specified by the probation officer. The defendant shall pay the cost of electronic monitoring as determined by the probation officer.

If Your Honor has any questions concerning this recommendation, my direct line is (916) 786-2357.

MICHAEL A. SIPE Senior United States Probation Officer

Dated: June 28, 2010

Roseville, California MAS:cd

TERENCE E. SHERBONDY Supervising United States Probation Officer

Matthew Stegman Assistant United States Attorney

Jose R. Valdez Retained Defense Attorney 901 "H" Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95814

AGREE: __X________ DISAGREE: ___________

20100706

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.