United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 
ARNOLD SANSONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Joshua Ryan sought to dismiss his violations of supervised
release. (Doc. 87). The government opposed Mr. Ryan's
motion. (Doc. 90). The undersigned issued a Report and
Recommendation on October 2, 2019 recommending denial of Mr.
Ryan's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 91). On October 8, 2019,
Mr. Ryan replied to the government's response (Doc. 92)
and then on October 28, 2019, Mr. Ryan filed another motion
to dismiss his violations of supervised release (Doc. 94).
The district court remanded the motion to the undersigned for
reconsideration and ordered the government to respond to Mr.
Ryan's October 8th reply. (Doc. 93).
Ryan seeks to dismiss his violations of supervised release
because federal authorities executed an arrest warrant in
June 2019 for his alleged violations of supervised release
and so he has been denied a timely supervised release
revocation hearing. (Docs. 92, 94). Mr. Ryan provided the
court with the investigate narrative from Sarasota County
Sheriff's Office describing the warrants executed against
Mr. Ryan including the federal warrant for violating
supervised release. (Doc. 94-1). After a review of Mr.
Ryan's documentation and speaking with the U.S. Marshal
Services (USMS) and the U.S. Probation Office, the government
now recommends the U.S. Probation's petition alleging Mr.
Ryan violated the conditions of his supervised release be
dismissed. (Doc. 95).
court detailed the facts in its prior Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 91). Since the court issued that
report, Mr. Ryan and the government provided corrected facts
important in resolving Mr. Ryan's motion.
8, 2019, the U.S. Probation Office submitted to the court a
petition alleging Mr. Ryan violated his supervised release by
testing positive for cocaine four times in 2019. (Doc. 95,
¶ 8). The court issued an arrest warrant on May 14, 2019
(Doc. 86), then the USMS assigned a Deputy U.S. Marshal to
find and arrest Mr. Ryan on that warrant (Doc. 95, ¶ 8).
During June 2019, the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office
(SCSO) investigated Mr. Ryan for selling drugs and found the
federal arrest warrant after review of law enforcement
databases. (Id. at ¶ 9). Based on the
information from the investigation and the federal arrest
warrant, narcotics investigators within the SCSO contacted
one of their colleagues, a deputy who serves on the USMS
fugitive task force but was not the original Deputy U.S.
Marshal assigned to execute the May 14th arrest warrant.
(Id. at ¶ 10). On June 20, 2019, the USMS
fugitive task force deputy and SCSO narcotics investigators
went to Mr. Ryan's apartment where Mr. Ryan was arrested
on the federal arrest warrant and SCSO executed a state
search warrant for Mr. Ryan's apartment. (Id. at
¶ 13). The USMS fugitive task force deputy booked Mr.
Ryan in the Sarasota County Jail on the federal arrest
warrant under the belief state drug charges would be filed
soon. (Id. at ¶ 14). Since his arrest on the
federal warrant, Mr. Ryan has been detained in the Sarasota
County jail, but, to date, the executed arrest warrant has
not been returned or filed on the court docket. Subsequent to
the arrest on the federal warrant, the state charged Mr. Ryan
with the felony state drug crimes and the state assumed
custody of Mr. Ryan to face those charges. (Id. at
¶ 15). At no time has Mr. Ryan had a hearing to revoke
his supervised release or even an initial appearance for his
to revoke supervised release, like hearings to revoke parole,
are not criminal prosecutions. These proceedings do not
trigger the “full panoply of rights” which attach
during a criminal trial, including the Sixth Amendment's
guarantee of a speedy trial. Morrissey v. Brewer,
408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972). These proceedings do, however,
affect the liberty interests of individuals, and trigger
limited protections under the Due Process Clause.
Id. at 484. The due process right triggered by a
revocation proceeding is the right to have a
“revocation hearing . . . within a reasonable time
after the parolee is taken into custody.” Id.
at 488. This right has been codified in Fed. R. Crim. P.
32.1, which requires that “[a] person held in custody
for violating probation or supervised release must be taken
without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, ”
and that “the court must hold the revocation hearing
within a reasonable time in the district having
jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(1) and (b)(2)
Mr. Ryan did not receive a final revocation hearing within a
reasonable time, Mr. Ryan's motion to dismiss his
supervised release violations (Doc. 87) should be
GRANTED and the May 8, 2019 violation of
supervised release petition should be
parties have fourteen days from the date they are served a
copy of this report to file written objections to this
report's proposed findings and recommendations or to seek
an extension of the fourteen-day deadline to file written
objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. A
party's failure to object timely in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives that party's right to
challenge on appeal the district court's order adopting
this report's unobjected-to factual findings and legal
conclusions. 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
 Since this is a dispositive motion,
the undersigned is issuing a Report and Recommendation to the