United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SUPERVISED
A. Westmore United States Magistrate Judge
to the designation issued by the District Court under 18
U.S.C. § 3401(i), this Court conducted a supervised
release violation hearing in this matter on July 12, 2017.
For the reasons that follow, this Court recommends that the
District Court revoke Defendant Bobby Burnell Barfield's
supervised release; sentence him to the custody of the Bureau
of Prisons for a period of time served; impose a new term of
supervised release for a period of 70 months; and adopt all
previously-imposed conditions of supervised release, as well
as the added condition that he reside at a residential drug
treatment facility for a period of 6 months.
Court makes the following findings and recommendations:
the hearing date set forth above, the defendant, with the
assistance of counsel, was advised that: (a) he has the right
to have a district judge conduct a hearing to modify, revoke,
or terminate his supervised release; (b) he may expressly
waive that right and consent to have such hearing conducted
by a magistrate judge; (c) if he consents to have a
magistrate judge conduct the supervised release revocation
hearing, the designated magistrate judge will submit
proposed, written findings of fact and recommendations to the
district judge regarding the modification, revocation, or
termination, including, in the case of revocation, a
recommended disposition under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); (d)
the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations will
be reviewed by the district judge; and (e) the district
judge, not the magistrate judge, will make the final decision
regarding whether to terminate, modify or revoke his
supervision. Based on the defendant's acknowledgment of
the foregoing, this Court finds that the defendant
intelligently, voluntarily and expressly consented to have a
magistrate judge conduct his supervised release revocation
Court questioned the defendant to ensure that he had a full
and fair opportunity to discuss with his attorney the charges
pending against him.
Court read the charges pending against the defendant, as set
forth in the Petition for Arrest Warrant for Offender Under
Supervision. The defendant acknowledged that he understood
the charges alleged against him.
defendant further acknowledged his awareness of the following
rights: (a) written notice of the alleged violations; (b)
disclosure of the evidence against him; (c) an opportunity to
appear and present evidence on his behalf; (d) the
opportunity to question adverse witnesses; (e) notice of his
right to be represented by counsel; and (f) the right to
the foregoing rights in mind, the defendant admitted the
charges alleged against him in the Petition for Arrest
Warrant for Offender under Supervision.
parties stipulated in open court that for purposes of these
proceedings that the facts set forth in the Petition for
Arrest Warrant for Offender Under Supervision provide a
sufficient predicate for the defendant's admission.
Based upon the defendant's admission and the parties'
stipulation, this Court finds that the Government has shown
by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant
violated the conditions of his supervised release, as alleged
in Charges One through Five of the Petition for Arrest
Warrant for Offender Under Supervision.
Following the defendant's admission of the charges
alleged against him, this Court conducted the disposition
phase of the proceeding.
parties confirmed that there are no factual disputes with
Based upon the undisputed facts in the memorandum, the
parties stipulated for purposes of this proceeding as to the
accuracy of Probation's conclusions with respect to: (a)
the Grade of the violation, which is C; (b) the Criminal
History Category, which is V; and (c) and the resulting
Guideline Range, which is 7-13 months. Based on the
parties' stipulation, this Court finds that the Grade of
the violation, Criminal History Category and Guideline Range
are as stated.
the record, the parties acknowledged that they are in
agreement with Probation's recommendation that the
defendant's supervised release be revoked, that the
defendant be sentenced to the custody of the Bureau of
Prisons for a period of time served, and that upon release
from custody, he be placed on supervised release for a period
of 70 months. The parties further acknowledged their
agreement with Probation's recommendation that all prior
conditions of supervised ...