USA v. Huber

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW HUBER,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:22-cr-00052
Judge J. Philip Calabrese
Magistrate Judge
Jonathan D. Greenberg
OPINION AND ORDER
On November 26, 2025, Defendant Matthew Huber filed a motion for the Court
to reinstate the original terms of his supervised release, release him from home
confinement, and remove the requirement for location monitoring. For the following
reasons, the Court DENIES that motion.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On 	March 	13, 	2023, 	the 	Court 	sentenced 	Mr. 	Huber 	to 	37 	months 	of
incarceration, with credit for time served, and 3 years of supervised release. 	(ECF
No. 35.) On August 19, 2025, Mr. Huber appeared for a supervised release violation
hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 	(Minutes, Aug. 19, 2025.) 	Mr. Huber was
released on his prior conditions of supervised release along with additional conditions
as stated on the record, including being placed on a location monitoring program with
GPS monitoring and home detention. (Id.)
On September 19, 2025, Mr. Huber appeared for a fact of violation hearing
before the Magistrate Judge. (Minutes, Sept. 19, 2025.) Proffers and arguments were
Case: 1:22-cr-00052-JPC Doc #: 67 Filed: 12/10/25 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
made, and officer testimony was taken. (Id.) Mr. Huber admitted to three supervised
release violations, including an amended violation. 	(Id.) 	The Magistrate Judge
issued a report and recommendation that the Court find that Mr. Huber violated the
terms of his supervised release. (ECF No. 63, PageID #486.) Further, the Magistrate
Judge continued Mr. Huber’s conditions of supervised release as previously imposed
pending the Court’s action. (Id., PageID #487.)
On September 26, 2025, the Court held a violation hearing as to Mr. Huber.
(Minutes, Sept. 26, 2025.) Without objection from the parties, the Court adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and determined that Mr. Huber
violated the conditions of his supervised release. 	(Id.) 	The Court heard arguments
regarding a penalty or sanction, took the matter under advisement, and directed the
probation officer to provide a status report by October 31, 2025. (Id.) On October 24,
2025, a supplemental report was provided to the Court, which gave an update on
Mr. Huber’s compliance. (ECF No. 65.)
On November 26, 2025, Mr. Huber filed a motion for the Court to reinstate the
original terms of his supervised release, release him from home confinement, and
remove the ankle monitor. (ECF No. 66, PageID #503.) According to Mr. Huber, he
has “been on home arrest with an ankle monitor since August 19, 2025 with no
violations,” “complied with all recommendations of the Court,” “complied with the
general requirements of supervised release,” and has “been making payments on his
court imposed fees.” (Id.)
Case: 1:22-cr-00052-JPC Doc #: 67 Filed: 12/10/25 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Rule 32.1(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
“[b]efore modifying the conditions of probation or supervised release, the court must
hold a hearing, at which the person has the right to counsel and an opportunity to
make a statement and present any information in mitigation.” 	However, courts
within the Sixth Circuit “routinely dispose of motions to modify supervised release
without a hearing when no modification results.” United States v. Sosna, No. 1:24-
cr-6, 2025 WL 3140641, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 10, 2025) (citing United States v.
Laughton, 658 F. Supp. 3d 540, 543 (E.D. Mich. 2023); United States v. Thorson, No.
5:16-cr-17, 2022 WL 875225, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 23, 2022)). This interpretation is
consistent with the Court’s reading of Rule 32.1(c)(1), which requires that the Court
hold 	a 	hearing 	“[b]efore 	modifying 	the 	conditions 	of 	probation 	or 	supervised
release.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c)(1) (emphasis added).
In any event, the Court already held a violation hearing on September 26,
2025, in which Defendant and his counsel were present and oral argument was heard.
(Minutes, Sept. 26, 2025.) 	The Sixth Circuit has determined that where, as here, a
defendant already “received a modification hearing under Rule 32.1(c)(1),” it was
“unaware of any authority that would entitle him to a second hearing.” United States
v. Pate, No. 24-5565, 2025 WL 1342740, at *5 (6th Cir. May 8, 2025).
Based on a review of the record, Defendant’s admission to the three supervised
release violations, and the fact that the Court imposed the location monitoring
program with GPS monitoring and home detention as a condition of bond in lieu of
Case: 1:22-cr-00052-JPC Doc #: 67 Filed: 12/10/25 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
incarceration, 	the 	Court 	sees 	no 	reason 	to 	modify 	Defendant’s 	conditions 	of
supervised release at this time. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion
to reinstate the original terms of his supervised release without the need for a
hearing. Sosna, 2025 WL 3140641, at *1; Laughton, 658 F. Supp. 3d at 543.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to reinstate
the original terms of his supervised release. (ECF No 66.)
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 10, 2025
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio
Case: 1:22-cr-00052-JPC Doc #: 67 Filed: 12/10/25 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>