Opposing party · Case 26-102221-PP
03d PPO Pet Reponse To Motion To Terminate Pt 4
Canonical record: rockenhaus.net. Disputed domains are indexed at /disputed-domains/ (not authoritative).
Loading document…
Filing text (searchable excerpt)
Sentencing• Friday, October 17, 2025
21
1 for marijuana again. The probation officer later discovered
2 that one of the devices had been remotely wiped clean after he
3 seized it.
4 Now, Your Honor, the defendant comes before the Court
5 at the age of 43. He does have some reported physical and
6 mental health issues and he is a decorated navy veteran. He is
7 well educated with a master's degree in computer and
8 information science. These are all positive and weigh in favor
9 of leniency.
10 However, he also has a very -- he has a long history
11 of noncompliance dating all the way back to 2011 with multiple
12 instances of failure to appear in state court, including
13 failure to appear for a jury trial. And in this case, in the
14 Eastern District of Texas he failed to comply with the terms of
15 his pretrial supervision which resulted in his bond being
16 revoked twice. This pattern of noncompliance has continued
17 throughout this case and into his supervision.
18 Now, of the sentencing factors, thus far I have
19 discussed the nature and circumstances of the offense, the
20 defendant's history and characteristics. We've talked about
21 restitution. But here deterrence is by far the most
22 significant factor of all. Of course, any sentence issued
23 today must be sufficient to deter others from violating the
24 terms of their supervised release, but most of all it needs to
25 deter the defendant himself.
USA v Conrad Rockenhaus • 23-20701
Sentencing• Friday, October 17, 2025
22
1 The defendant received a second chance here to come
2 into compliance and avoid any further proceedings. Instead, he
3 breached the Court's trust, and in doing so he has proven
4 himself to be incorrigible, unsupervisable. True, his
5 violations are Grade C violations, one might say technical, but
6 there are many and they were repetitive and continuous. Again
7 and again and again the defendant failed to follow the rules or
8 comply with the conditions of his release, and he has done so
9 in a manner that could be reasonably perceived as indifferent
10 or even disdainful.
11 He has made it clear that there is no condition or
12 combination of conditions with which he is willing or able to
13 comply. He has made it clear that he does not respect the
14 process. And at the end of the day, Your Honor, the only way
15 to deter someone who doesn't respect the process is to revoke
16 supervision and impose a custodial sentence.
17 So based on the record, based on the sentencing
18 factors, it is the government's position that a custodial
19 sentence at or near the top of the guideline range is both
20 appropriate and necessary. And the government would further
21 ask that any sentence today include no further supervision and
22 that it also include an order requiring the defendant to comply
23 with the remainder of his restitution obligation, which is
24 approximately $511,208.43. Thank you.
25 THE COURT: All right. One thing before you sit
USA v Conrad Rockenhaus • 23-20701
Sentencing• Friday, October 17, 2025
23
1 down. I don't -- and I'm not saying this is a bad -- in fact,
2 I'll speak to this in a minute. But I mean once -- once the
3 case is over, if I terminate supervised release, there's no --
4 there's no real governme
Excerpt of 39619 characters. Download the full PDF for complete text.
About this filing
03d PPO Pet Reponse To Motion To Terminate Pt 4: opposing-party filing by Adrienne Rockenhaus (aka Adrienne Blair aka Adrienne Hein (@adezero)) in Rockenhaus v. Rockenhaus (Personal Protection Order (PPO)), Michigan Case No. 26-102221-PP, Wayne County Circuit Court. PDF and searchable text at rockenhaus.net (canonical court record). Disputed third-party domains: /disputed-domains/.
- File name
03d_ppo_pet_reponse_to_motion_to_terminate_pt_4.pdf- Case number
- 26-102221-PP
- Category
- Opposing party
- Disputed domains
- View disputed domains (asserted controlled by Adrienne Rockenhaus; not authoritative).
- Related context
- FAQ, Joe Prich evidence, Rob Hein
- Canonical record
- rockenhaus.net