Exhibit A — USA v. Edwards et al (Dkt. 240.1)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida · No. 8:18-cr-00344-VMC-AAS · Doc. 188 · 2024-11-15 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
TAMPA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
Case No. 8:18-cr-344-VMC-AAS 
 
 
MATTHEW DARIUS CHAPPELL 
_______________________________/ 
 
ORDER 
 
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of 
United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone’s Report 
and Recommendation (Doc. # 184), entered on January 11, 2023, 
recommending that the United States of America’s Motion to 
Further Remand the Defendant to the Custody of the Attorney 
General for an Evaluation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (Doc. 
# 176) be denied and the Court refer the matter back to Judge 
Sansone to reopen Mr. Chappell’s bond hearing.   
 
Specifically, Judge Sansone concludes that “[b]ecause 
neither the Butner director nor any other facility director 
has forwarded to this Court a certificate on Mr. Chappell’s 
dangerousness prior to the Court finding Mr. Chappell not 
competent to stand trial, this Court is without jurisdiction 
under the IDRA to temporarily remand Mr. Chappell to Butner 
for purposes of a dangerousness evaluation or otherwise 
Case 8:18-cr-00344-VMC-AAS   Document 188   Filed 01/27/23   Page 1 of 3 PageID 790
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP     Document 240-1     Filed 11/15/24     Page 1 of 3 PageID
1454

2 
 
detain him pursuant to the competency proceedings.” (Id. at 
16). 
 
As of this date, neither party has filed an objection to 
the Report and Recommendation, and the time for the parties 
to file such objections has elapsed.  
Discussion 
 
After conducting a careful and complete review of the 
findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, 
reject 
or 
modify 
the 
magistrate 
judge’s 
report 
and 
recommendation. 
28 
U.S.C. 
§ 
636(b)(1); 
Williams 
v. 
Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of 
specific objections, there is no requirement that a district 
judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 
F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, 
reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and 
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge 
reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an 
objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 
(11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 
1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994). 
 
After conducting a careful and complete review of the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de 
novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual 
Case 8:18-cr-00344-VMC-AAS   Document 188   Filed 01/27/23   Page 2 of 3 PageID 791
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP     Document 240-1     Filed 11/15/24     Page 2 of 3 PageID
1455

3 
 
findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in 
full. 
 
Accordingly, it is now  
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 
(1) 
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 184) is ACCEPTED 
and ADOPTED. 
(2) The United States of America’s Motion to Further Remand 
the Defendant to the Custody of the Attorney General for 
an Evaluation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (Doc. # 176) 
is DENIED.  
(3) The Court refers this matter back to Judge Sansone to 
reopen Mr. Chappell’s bond hearing.  
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 
26th day of January, 2023. 
 
 
 
 
  
Case 8:18-cr-00344-VMC-AAS   Document 188   Filed 01/27/23   Page 3 of 3 PageID 792
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP     Document 240-1     Filed 11/15/24     Page 3 of 3 PageID
1456

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.408844.240.1.pdf

Size

175,833 bytes

SHA-256

fecc63b316ef329c2b0eff364d671d601e3490de5278f4049cf234167acc0c88

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.408844.240.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)