Free Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00308-WYD

Document 29

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO U. S. A. vs. JACOB LEE SORENSEN Docket Number: 00-cr-00308-WYD-01 Petition on Supervised Release COMES NOW, James Murphy, probation officer of the court, presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of Jacob Lee Sorensen who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel sitting in the court at Denver, Colorado, on the 17th day of January, 2001, who fixed the period of supervision at three 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 and shall pay the cost of treatment as directed by the probation officer. The defendant shall participate in a program of mental health treatment, as directed by the probation officer, until such time as the defendant is released from the program by the probation officer. The defendant shall pay the cost of treatment as directed by the probation officer. The Court authorizes the probation officer to release to the treatment agency all psychological reports and/or the presentence report for continuity of treatment.

2.

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 the issuance of an arrest warrant for violation of supervised release and that the petition and warrant be sealed until the arrest of the defendant. ORDER OF THE COURT Considered and ordered this 22nd day of June 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/ James M. Murphy James M. Murphy Probation Officer

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel United States District Judge Place: Colorado Springs, Colorado Date: June 16, 2006

Case 1:00-cr-00308-WYD

Document 29
ATTACHMENT

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 2 of 7

Attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference is a true copy of the conditions of supervised release signed by the defendant on January 23, 2001; July 23, 2003, and October 5, 2004. His signature on these occasions acknowledges 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 on July 18, 2003. The defendant has committed the following violations of supervised release. 1. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE :

On or about October 14, 2005, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, methamphetamine, 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 October 14, 2005, the defendant submitted a urine sample at Bridge To Awareness, Colorado Springs, Colorado. On October 20, 2005, I received notification that the urine sample submitted by the defendant on October 14, 2005, tested positive for the use of methamphetamine. On October 27, 2005, I confronted the defendant regarding this positive urine specimen. The defendant admitted to using methamphetamine about twice a week for the last month. He stated that " I made a mistake, will stop using, and will not let it happen again." On October 27, 2005, I notified the Court of the defendant' use of methamphetamine. The defendant was referred back to s Bridge To Awareness for substance abuse counseling and random urinalysis testing. Your Honor concurred with Probation that no further action was required at that time.

2.

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE :

On or about November 22, 2005, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, methamphetamine, 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 November 22, 2005, the defendant submitted a urine sample at Bridge To Awareness, Colorado Springs, Colorado. On November 30, 2005, I was notified that the urine sample submitted by the defendant on November 22, 2005, tested positive for the use of methamphetamine. On December 8, 2005, I confronted the defendant regarding this positive urine specimen. The defendant admitted to using methamphetamine, stating, " have tried to quit using and did so for about five days, but I I used again." On December 14, 2005, I notified the Court of the defendant' use of methamphetamine. The defendant' treatment at s s Bridge To Awareness was increased and he was instructed to check himself into a detox center. He was warned that further use would not be tolerated. Your Honor concurred with Probation that no further action was required at that time.

Case 1:00-cr-00308-WYD

Document 29

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 3 of 7

Case 1:00-cr-00308-WYD
3.

Document 29

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 4 of 7

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE :

On or about December 14, 2005, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, methamphetamine, 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 14, 2005, the defendant submitted a urine sample at Bridge To Awareness, Colorado Springs, Colorado. On January 5, 2006, I received notification confirming that the urine sample submitted by the defendant on December 14, 2005, tested positive for the use of methamphetamine. The defendant reported that he had been using methamphetamine, tried to quit his use, but could only abstain from use for short periods of time. On February 6, 2006, Senior United States Probation Officer Kathleen Keenan notified the Court of the defendant' s continued use of methamphetamine. With the assistance of his therapist at Bridge To Awareness, funding was obtained through an ADAD scholarship for the defendant' placement at Rosada, an inpatient substance abuse program in Las s Animas, Colorado. Your Honor concurred with Probation that no further action was required at that time. 4. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE :

On or about February 6, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, methamphetamine, 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 6, 2006, the defendant submitted a urine sample at Bridge To Awareness, Colorado Springs, Colorado. On March 1, 2006, I received notification confirming that the urine sample submitted by the defendant on February 6, 2006, tested positive for the use of methamphetamine. The defendant reported that he had been using methamphetamine, tried to quit his use, but could only abstain from use for short periods of time. On February 6, 2006, Senior United States Probation Officer Kathleen Keenan notified the Court of the defendant' s continued use of methamphetamine. With the assistance of his therapist at Bridge To Awareness, funding was obtained through an ADAD scholarship for the defendant' placement at Rosada, an inpatient substance abuse program in Las s Animas, Colorado. Your Honor concurred with Probation that no further action was required at that time. When confirmation for this positive urine sample was received, the defendant was in inpatient treatment at Rosada, in Las Animas, Colorado.

5.

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE :

On or about April 19, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, methamphetamine, 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 19, 2006, the defendant submitted a urine sample at the U.S. Probation Office, Colorado Springs, Colorado. On May 1, 2006, I received notification confirming that the urine sample submitted by the defendant on April 19, 2006, tested positive for the use of methamphetamine. The defendant, while providing the urine sample to me, admitted to using methamphetamine the night before. He stated, " did the biggest line I have ever done last night." The defendant was I instructed to continue to attend treatment and submit to urine testing. The defendant was also told that the Court would be notified of the violation.

Case 1:00-cr-00308-WYD

Document 29

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 5 of 7

Case 1:00-cr-00308-WYD
6.

Document 29

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 6 of 7

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE :

On or about April 28, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, methamphetamine, 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 28, 2006, the defendant submitted a urine sample at Bridge To Awareness, Colorado Springs, Colorado. On May 8, 2006, I received preliminary notification that the urine sample submitted by the defendant on April 28, 2006, tested positive for the use of methamphetamine. On May 8, 2006, I confronted the defendant about the positive urine sample, he admitted to using methamphetamine and that he was using every couple of days. He said he tried but could not quit. The defendant was instructed to continue to attend treatment and submit to urine testing. The defendant was also told that the Court would be notified of the violation. On May 9, 2006, I received confirmation that the urine sample submitted by the defendant on April 28, 2006, was positive for the use of methamphetamine. 7. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG TREATMENT AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER (URINALYSIS):

The defendant failed to submit urine samples at Bridge To Awareness, the testing and treatment program in which the probation officer had directed him to participate, on March 28, 2006; April 5, 2006; April 13, 2006; April 18, 2006; May 3, 2006; May 11, 2006; May 15, 2006; May 30, 2006; June 8, 2006, and June 14, 2006, all of which constitute a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On March 16, 2006, the day after the defendant was released from Rosada inpatient drug treatment program, I met with him in my office. On that date, per the defendant' special conditions of supervised release, the defendant was instructed to s participate in substance abuse treatment and testing at Bridge To Awareness. A treatment program was set up prior to the defendant' release from inpatient treatment that included both group and individual counseling and random urine testing. s I met with the defendant on April 19, 2006, and again on May 8, 2006, and discussed his failure to submit to urine testing. On both occasions he reported that he was using methamphetamine and failed to give urine samples. On both occasions, I instructed him to participate in the drug treatment program to include providing urine samples. On June 8, 2006, I met with the defendant at his home and he reported that he has given up on treatment and that he continues to use methamphetamine a couple of days a week. 8. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG TREATMENT AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER (COUNSELING):

The defendant failed to attend substance abuse counseling as directed at Bridge To Awareness, the testing and treatment program in which the probation officer had directed him to participate, on March 21, 2006; March 28, 2006; April 4, 2006; May 2, 2006; May 9, 2006; May 16, 2006; May 23, 2006, and May 30, 2006, all of which constitute a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On March 16, 2006, the day after the defendant was released from Rosada inpatient drug treatment program, I met with him in my office. On that date, per the defendant' special conditions of supervised release, the defendant was instructed to s participate in substance abuse treatment and testing at Bridge To Awareness. A treatment program was set up prior to the defendant' release from inpatient treatment that included both group and individual counseling and random urine testing. s

Case 1:00-cr-00308-WYD

Document 29

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 7 of 7

I met with the defendant on April 19, 2006, and again on May 8, 2006, and discussed his failure to participate in counseling. On both occasions he reported that he was using methamphetamine and has tried to quit but other things have gotten in the way. On both occasions, I instructed him to participate in the drug treatment program to include providing urine samples. On June 8, 2006, I met with the defendant at his home and he reported that he has given up on treatment and that he continues to use methamphetamine a couple of days a week.