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
 

Damien Edward Mitchell will be allowed to continue serving on federal supervised release following the signing of an order by a United States district court judge earlier this month.

The order that continued supervision came several days after a revocation hearing on June 1 in which Mitchell was initially remanded back into custody while the United States Probation Office drafted an order.

United States District Terrence W. Boyle wrote in the June 6 order continuing supervision that evidence presented at the June 1 revocation hearing showed that Mitchell did not violate terms and conditions of his federal supervised release which had been required following his sentence on April 9, 2012 on drug charges. The June 6 order does not go into detail of the evidence presented during the revocation hearing.

Mitchell had entered a guilty plea of distributing 28 grams or more crack cocaine and was sentenced to 120 months in prison followed by 60 months of supervised release.

“It now appears that the ends of justice would best be served by denying the motion for revocation before the court … and continuing supervision,” Boyle wrote.

The order does not mention that Mitchell has a pending district court date in Northampton County for local drug charges.

United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina Michael F. Easley Jr. had opposed an earlier motion by Mithcell for termination of his supervised release.

Easley wrote in opposing Mitchell’s motion for early termination of the supervised release that the motion should be denied “because (the) defendant has not demonstrated some new or unforeseen circumstance justifying early termination of supervision or that supervision would hinder rather than facilitate rehabilitation.”