Free Petition/Order Modifying Conditions of Supervision - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00032-DBS

Document 88

Filed 04/27/2006

Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO U. S. A. vs. Daniel Marquez Docket Number: 00-cr-00032-DBS-01 Petition on Supervised Release COMES NOW, Kurt Pierpont, probation officer of the court, presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of Daniel Marquez who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Daniel B. Sparr sitting in the court at Denver, Colorado, on the 27th day of February, 2001, who fixed the period of supervision at Three (3) Years, and imposed the general terms and conditions theretofore adopted by the court and also imposed special conditions and terms as follows: 1. The defendant shall participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug abuse, as directed by the probation officer, until such time as the defendant is released from the program by the probation officer. The defendant shall abstain from the use of alcohol or other intoxicants during the course of treatment. The defendant will be required to pay the cost of treatment as directed by the probation officer.

RESPECTFULLY PRESENTING PETITION FOR ACTION OF COURT FOR CAUSE AS FOLLOWS:
(If short insert here: if lengthy write on separate sheet and attach)

See attachment hereto and herein incorporated by reference.

PRAYING THAT THE COURT WILL ORDER that a summons issue for violations of supervised release. ORDER OF THE COURT Considered and ordered this 27th day of April, 2006, and ordered filed and made a part of the record in the above case. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. s/ Kurt Pierpont Kurt Pierpont Senior U.S. Probation Officer Place: Denver, Colorado Date: April 25, 2006

s/ Daniel B. Sparr Daniel B. Sparr Senior U.S. District Judge

Case 1:00-cr-00032-DBS

Document 88

Filed 04/27/2006

Page 2 of 7

ATTACHMENT

Attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference is a true copy of the Acknowledgment of Conditions of Supervision signed by the defendant on June 30, 2005. His signature on this occasion acknowledged that the conditions had been read and explained to him, that he fully understood said conditions, and that he was provided with a copy of them. The term of supervised release commenced June 28, 2005.

The defendant has committed the following violations of supervised release:

1.

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

On or about December 19, 2005, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, marijuana, which had not been prescribed for him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release.

This charge is based on the following facts:

On December 19, 2005, defendant submitted a random urine specimen at Addiction Research Treatment Services (A.R.T.S.) which was subsequently analyzed at the U.S. Probation Office in the District of New Mexico, and later confirmed at Kroll Laboratory, with results testing positive for marijuana metabolite (82 ng/ml).

2.

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

On or about January 9, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, marijuana, which had not been prescribed for him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release.

Case 1:00-cr-00032-DBS
This charge is based on the following facts:

Document 88

Filed 04/27/2006

Page 3 of 7

On January 9, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine specimen at Addiction Research Treatment Services (A.R.T.S.) which was subsequently analyzed at the U.S. Probation Office in the District of New Mexico, and later confirmed at Kroll Laboratory, with results testing positive for marijuana metabolite (229 ng/ml).

3.

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

On or about January 30, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, marijuana, which had not been prescribed for him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release.

This charge is based on the following facts:

On January 30, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine specimen at Addiction Research Treatment Services (A.R.T.S.) which was subsequently analyzed at the U.S. Probation Office in the District of New Mexico, and later confirmed at Kroll Laboratory, with results testing positive for marijuana metabolite (677 ng/ml).

4.

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

On or about February 1, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, marijuana, which had not been prescribed for him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release.

This charge is based on the following facts:

On February 1, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine specimen at Addiction Research Treatment Services (A.R.T.S.) which was subsequently analyzed at the U.S. Probation Office in the District of New Mexico, and later confirmed at Kroll Laboratory, with results testing positive for marijuana metabolite (681 ng/ml).

Case 1:00-cr-00032-DBS

Document 88

Filed 04/27/2006

Page 4 of 7

5.

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

On or about February 15, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, marijuana, which had not been prescribed for him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release.

This charge is based on the following facts:

On February 15, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine specimen at Addiction Research Treatment Services (A.R.T.S.) which was subsequently analyzed at the U.S. Probation Office in the District of New Mexico, and later confirmed at Kroll Laboratory, with results testing positive for marijuana metabolite (1538 ng/ml).

6.

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

On or about February 24, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, marijuana, which had not been prescribed for him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release.

This charge is based on the following facts:

On February 24, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine specimen at Addiction Research Treatment Services (A.R.T.S.) which was subsequently analyzed at the U.S. Probation Office in the District of New Mexico, and later confirmed at Kroll Laboratory, with results testing positive for marijuana metabolite (287 ng/ml).

7.

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

On or about March 8, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, marijuana, which had not been prescribed for him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release.

Case 1:00-cr-00032-DBS

Document 88

Filed 04/27/2006

Page 5 of 7

Case 1:00-cr-00032-DBS
This charge is based on the following facts:

Document 88

Filed 04/27/2006

Page 6 of 7

On March 8, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine specimen at the Wright Center, which was subsequently analyzed at Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, with results testing positive for THC/Marijuana (137 ng/ml).

8.

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

On or about March 23, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, marijuana, which had not been prescribed for him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release.

This charge is based on the following facts:

On March 23, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine specimen at the Wright Center, which was subsequently analyzed at Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, with results testing positive for THC/Marijuana (210 ng/ml). It is noted that this urine specimen was collected while defendant was participating in inpatient treatment at the Wright Center. Defendant subsequently " walked away"from the Wright Center prior to completing their program.

9.

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

On or about April 11, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, marijuana, which had not been prescribed for him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release.

This charge is based on the following facts:

On April 11, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine specimen at Addiction Research Treatment Services (A.R.T.S.) which was subsequently analyzed at the U.S. Probation Office in the District of New Mexico, and later confirmed at Kroll Laboratory, with results testing positive for marijuana metabolite (52 ng/ml).

Case 1:00-cr-00032-DBS
10.

Document 88

Filed 04/27/2006

Page 7 of 7

FAILURE TO SUBMIT WRITTEN REPORTS

The defendant failed to submit written reports for the months of December 2005, January, February, and March 2006, within the first five days of the months of January, February, March, and April 2006, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release.

This charge is based on the following facts:

On June 30, 2005, defendant reported to the probation office following his release from custody at the Bureau of Prisons. At that time, defendant was given instructions to submit his written monthly supervision report by the 5 th day of the month, for the previous month' activities. I have not received a monthly supervision report from the defendant since December s 2005.