Free Probation Form 12 - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

7, ,,777,,, , . .,.. .. ,...--.-_... ....... ....._................a_+_,_,,.. .._..._...T?.;|i'....,,““___.?._.._ _.._..,..;.,“......_;_. _
F-`orm12 Case 3:00-cr-00146-CFD Document 15 Filed 06/15/2005 Page 1 of 2
r UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
_ DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
o
U.S.A. vs. DAVID PAYNE Docket No. 3:00CRO0146(CFD)
_ PETITION ON PROBATION AND SU ERVISED RELEASE _
‘ A ' T 1 Q W- `
COMES NOW Michael E. Sheehan, SUPERVISING PROBAT QN OFFICER OF THE;COURT,i§iesenting.lltn official
report upon the conduct and attitude of DAVID PAYNE who was sent ced to 13 months imprfisortmerttior a violation of 18
U.S.C. Section 1343, Wire Fraud, by the Honorable Robert F. Kelly, I .S. District Judge, sittin gap theioourt at.-Rgtsburgh,
Pennsylvania on September 16, 1999, , who fixed the period of supe_ ision at 3 years and imp§s.éd th eneraliit rms and
conditions theretofore adopted by the court and also imposed speciali onditions and terms asjollows: xg Payif§`§itution in
the amount of $33,430.34; and 2) The defendant shall undergo menta health treatment. The iiqiairuanaivas released from
imprisonment on March 10, 2000 at which time his supervised rele se commenced. On June;-1*9, 2090 jurisdiction was
transferred to the District of Connecticut and assigned to the HonorabIe%hristopher F. Droney, U.S.··District‘J udge, at Hartford,
Connecticut under Docket Number 3:00CR00146(CFD). i
On January 19, 2001, the Court, having found that the defendant had Molated the conditions of supervision, ordered that the
supervised release of Mr. Payne be revoked and that he be committeq to the custody ofthe Bureau of Prisons for 4 months,
to run consecutive to the sentence of imprisonment also imposed on tha date under Docket Number 3:00CR00236(CFD). The
Court re-imposed a term of supervised release with the original terms! and conditions to run concurrently with the 36 month
term of supervised release imposed in 3:00CR00238(CFD). `l'he defencvant was released on September 28, 2001 at which time
his supervised release commenced.
On April 14, 2003, the defendant appeared before the Honorable Christopher F. Droney in U.S. District Court at Hartford,
Connecticut to answer to the charge that he violated the conditions his supervised release. The Court found that the
defendant had violated his supervised release and revoked supervisio . The defendant was committed to the custody of the
Bureau of Prisons for 18 months, to run concurrent to the sentence of i prisonment also imposed on that date under Docket
Number 3:00CR00236(CF D). The Court reimposed a term of supervi ed release of 12 months, with the original terms and
conditions, to run concurrent with the 12 month term of supervised rel ase imposed in Docket Number 3:00CR00236(CFD)
but for the monthly restitution to be reduced to $100 per month on ead docket ($200 total).
4
Mr. Payne was released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons 0 E June 18, 2004, at which time his supervised release
commenced in the District of Maryland. Supervision is due to expire 0, June 17, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY PRESENTING PETITION FOR ACTION Oi: COURT AND FOR CAUSE AS FOLLOWS:
The defendant is being cited for violating the following condition of sugprvised release:
Charge No.1 Special Condition: "The defendantshall pay restitution in thl amount of 33 430.34 in 10 monthl instaIIments."
The U.S. Probation Office in the District of Maryland has advised that etween August 2, 2004 and April 2, 2005, Mr. Payne
submitted photocopies reflecting nine payments via postal money or rs to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, in the District of
Connecticut, in the amount of $200 each ($1800 total).However, an in uiry of the Clerk’s Office in the District of Connecticut
has revealed that no payments had ever been received during the af rementioned time period. A review of their payment
ledger confirmed that no payments were received. On June 10, 2005 the U.S. Probation Office in the District of Maryland
discussed this discrepancy with Mr. Payne. He denied providing mislea ing documentation regarding his restitution payments
and was adamantthat he mailed the money orders tothe Clerk’s Offioei , the District of Connecticut. He seemed unconcerned
that the Clerk’s Office had not received any of his payments. il
PRAYING THAT THE COURT WILL ORDER that this petition vjrill serve as a summon?g(ing the period of supervision
and directing David Payne to appear before this court at Hartford, Cdhnecticut onqjgw at {yy, to show cause why
supervision should not be revoked. ann .
l
l

Il
` Case 3:00-cr-00146-CFD Document 15 Filed 06/15/2005 Page 2 of 2
fl ORDER OF COURT Sworn to By
Considered and oiidered this i
day of June , 2005 and ordered filed and made Michael . Sheehan
a part of the records inwne above case. Supervising United States Probation Officer _ i
A l
‘ - Pied; ° `
The Honoeable Christophe; Broney t Z _ '
United States District Judge Dah? é ‘/‘$ of
Before me, the Honorable Christopher F. Droney, United States Dist ict Judge, on this {koi June, 2005, at Hanford,
Supervising U.S. Probation Officer Michael E. Sheehan appeared and _ nder oath stated that the facts set forth in this petition
are true to the best of his knowledge and belief. ll j)
/*7 1
The Hoioiable Christoph?. Droney
United States District Judge
`l
-l
gl
1
Wl
J