United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
November 19, 2018
from the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia (No. 1:15-cr-00067-1)
Jonathan Zucker, appointed by the court, argued the cause and
filed the briefs for appellant.
S. Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for
appellee. With him on the brief were Jessie K. Liu, U.S.
Attorney, and Elizabeth Trosman, John P. Mannarino, and
Jonathan P. Hooks, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
Before: Katsas, Circuit Judge, and Silberman and Williams,
Senior Circuit Judges.
KATSAS, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
appeal addresses the legal consequences of a criminal
defendant's failure to object to a magistrate judge's
adverse report and recommendation. We also consider claims
that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance during
proceedings to revoke a term of supervised release.
Islam received two federal sentences for various offenses. In
the Southern District of New York, Islam pleaded guilty to
crimes involving credit-card fraud, identity theft, and
computer hacking. An SDNY judge sentenced him to one day of
imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
In the District of Columbia, Islam pleaded guilty to crimes
involving the theft and online publication of personal
information, conveying false information about the use of
explosives, and cyber-stalking. A DDC judge sentenced him to
two years of imprisonment followed by three years of
supervised release. The respective terms of supervised
release were subject to substantially similar conditions.
Islam served both prison sentences, he began concurrently
serving the terms of supervised release. Because Islam was
living in New York, the SDNY probation office conducted
supervision for both courts.
January 18, 2017, Islam was arrested in New York for
violating the conditions of his supervised release. On
January 19, the SDNY probation office filed with the SDNY a
petition to revoke the supervised release. On April 11, the
SDNY judge revoked Islam's original term of supervised
release and imposed two years of imprisonment followed by one
year of supervised release subject to the same conditions
previously imposed. She recommended that the imprisonment and
supervised release run concurrently with any further
punishment that the DDC judge might impose. With credit for
time served, Islam was released from SDNY custody on August
meantime, the DDC probation office filed its own petition to
revoke with the DDC. On February 1, 2017, the DDC judge
issued a warrant for Islam's arrest, which was lodged as
a detainer to be executed upon Islam's release from SDNY
custody. On August 14, Islam moved to dismiss the detainer
and to transfer the DDC case to the SDNY. On the same day,
the DDC judge denied the motion in a minute order. Upon his
release from SDNY custody, Islam was held under the detainer
and then transferred to the District of Columbia. On
September 6, Islam arrived in the District, was arrested
under the warrant, and appeared before a magistrate judge
assigned to his case.
magistrate judge scheduled a revocation hearing for September
15, but Islam sought and received two continuances. On
October 27, Islam moved to dismiss the petition for
revocation. Among other things, he argued that the delay
between his arrest in New York and revocation proceedings in
the DDC violated both the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a)(1).
Islam also sought to transfer the matter to the SDNY. On
November 8, the magistrate judge held a hearing on these
December 4, the magistrate judge issued a thirty-page report
and recommendation rejecting Islam's various arguments.
The magistrate judge proposed finding that Islam had engaged
in unauthorized travel, failed to identify computers and
other electronic devices to which he had access, failed to
allow monitoring of those devices, failed to attend
mental-health counseling, and failed to provide requested
financial information-all in violation of his
supervised-release conditions. The magistrate judge
recommended that the district court impose four months of
imprisonment. She recommended no further supervision because
the SDNY probation office would be supervising compliance
with the conditions imposed in the SDNY, which were
"nearly identical" to those imposed in the DDC.
App. 98. The report and recommendation stated that "any
party who objects to the proposed findings or recommendations
herein must file written objections within fourteen
days" of service. App. 99. It further ...