We Are Improving!

We hope that you'll find our new look appealing and the site easier to navigate than before. Please pardon any 404's that you may see, we're trying to tidy those up!  Should you find yourself on a 404 page please use the search feature in the navigation bar.  

User Rating: 5 / 5

Star ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar Active
 

The federal government has begun revocation proceedings for the supervised release of Damien Edward Mitchell who was arrested and charged on drug counts by the Northampton County Sheriff’s Office earlier this month.

Documents do not go into detail with the exception of notations which show the Gaston man was arrested this week and he appeared before Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank today in Greenville.

Swank appointed a public defender and set a probable cause and detention hearing before United States District Court Judge Terrence Boyle in Raleigh.

A date for that hearing has not been set.

Mitchell was detained pending the upcoming court appearance.

The revocation proceedings are an apparent result of Mitchell’s arrest on April 6 when the Northampton County Sheriff’s Office and other local agencies found cocaine, fentanyl, ammunition and paraphernalia at his residence.

He faces charges of three counts of possession with intent to sell and deliver schedule II, a count of felony maintaining a dwelling for a controlled substance and a count of possession of drug paraphernalia. He has a June 8 Northampton County District Court for a charge of driving while license revoked and a July 20 district court date for the drug charges.

Last year Boyle rejected Mitchell’s motion for early termination of his supervised federal release.

Boyle noted that In April 2012 Mitchell was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment and five years of supervised release after pleading guilty to distributing over 28 grams of cocaine base. He was released from prison on August 28, 2018 and began his term of supervised release.

The federal judge’s decision to reject Mitchell’s motion was based on the defendant not being compliant with all the terms of his supervision.