Free Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00321-LTB

Document 1173

Filed 09/14/2006

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO U. S. A. vs. John Riley Oliver Docket Number: 01-cr-00321-LTB-12 Petition on Supervised Release COMES NOW, Patrick J. Lynch, probation officer of the court, presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of John Riley Oliver who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Lewis T. Babcock sitting in the court at Denver, Colorado, on the 20th day of August, 2002, 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. 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 will be required to pay the cost of treatment as directed by the probation officer. The court authorizes the probation officer to release psychological reports and/or the presentence report to the treatment agency 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 as incorporated by reference. PRAYING THAT THE COURT WILL ORDER the issuance of a warrant for violations 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 14th day of September, 2006, and ordered filed under seal 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/Patrick J. Lynch Patrick J. Lynch Senior U.S. Probation Officer s/Lewis T. Babcock Lewis T. Babcock Chief U.S. District Judge Place: Denver Date: September 6, 2006

Case 1:01-cr-00321-LTB

Document 1173
ATTACHMENT

Filed 09/14/2006

Page 2 of 4

Attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference is a true copy of the Acknowledgment of Conditions of Supervision signed by defendant on March 31, 2006. His signature on this occasion acknowledged that the conditions had been read and explained to him, and that he was provided a copy of them. The term of supervised release commenced on March 31, 2006. The defendant has committed the following violations of supervised release: 1. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

On or about May 3, 2006, June 12, 2006, July 12, 2006, and August 21, 2006, defendant failed to attend his individual dual diagnosis counseling sessions at ARTS/Crosspoint, which constitute Grade C violations of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On March 31, 2006, defendant was referred to ARTS/Crosspoint for both substance abuse and mental health counseling. Defendant was directed to attend individual dual diagnosis counseling sessions two (2) hours each month. In addition, defendant was directed to obtain a psychiatric evaluation which took place on April 17, 2006 On May 3, 2006, the Probation Department received notification from ARTS/Crosspoint that defendant failed to attend his individual dual diagnosis counseling session. Although the Probation Department received notification of this missed appointment on May 3, 2006, I did not receive this information until May 24, 2006; therefore, I did not directly address this violation with defendant. According to defendant' dual diagnosis therapist at ARTS/Crosspoint, she spoke with defendant s and he acknowledged missing this appointment due to having difficulty sleeping at night. On June 12, 2006, I received notification from ARTS/Crosspoint that defendant failed to attend his individual dual diagnosis counseling session. I addressed this with defendant on June 14, 2006, and he was apologetic for missing this appointment and related he overslept. On July 12, 2006, I received notification from ARTS/Crosspoint that defendant failed to attend his individual dual diagnosis counseling session. Defendant' appointment was scheduled for 11:00 a.m. but he did not arrive until 1:00 p.m. because he s misread his appointment card. I addressed this with defendant on August 2, 2006, and he admitted having misread his appointment card. On August 21, 2006, I received notification from ARTS/Crosspoint that defendant failed to attend his individual dual diagnosis counseling session. Defendant left me a voice mail message on August 22, 2006, acknowledging his missed his scheduled appointment because it was his son' first day of school and he had to spend the entire day at school. s 2. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

On or about May 4, 2006, defendant failed to submit a urine sample at ARTS/Crosspoint, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On March 31, 2006, defendant was referred to ARTS/Crosspoint for the submission of random urine samples. On May 4, 2006, I received notification from ARTS/Crosspoint that defendant failed to submit a urine sample on that date. I addressed this with defendant on May 8, 2006, and he stated that although he called the urine phone line to check if he was required to submit on that date, he did not listen to the entire message.

Case 1:01-cr-00321-LTB
3.

Document 1173

Filed 09/14/2006

Page 3 of 4

POSSESSION OR USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about June 5, 2006, June 14, 2006, June 21, 2006, June 29, 2006, July 13, 2006, July 20, 2006, August 2, 2006, and August 28, 2006, defendant submitted random urine samples at ARTS/Crosspoint which tested positive for marijuana, cocaine or both, which constitute Grade C violations of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On May 31, 2006, defendant was referred to ARTS/Crosspoint for the submission of random urine samples. On June 5, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine sample at ARTS/Crosspoint that returned positive for the presence of marijuana. On May 30, 2006, defendant reported, unannounced and in person, to the probation office to advise me he had smoked " blunt"of marijuana on his birthday, May 28, 2006. Defendant explained he always smokes marijuana on his a birthday and noted he should have warned me before the fact. Defendant stated he only used marijuana one time on that date and noted it would not occur again. On June 14, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine sample at ARTS/Crosspoint that returned positive for the presence of marijuana. Although attempts were made to address this violation with defendant is June 2006, I was unable to meet with defendant until July 10, 2006. At that meeting, defendant admitted to smoking a " blunt"of marijuana that he obtained from a friend named " Kenny." Defendant stated he did not have any more of the " Big blunt"remaining. On June 21, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine sample at ARTS/Crosspoint that returned positive for the presence of marijuana. Although attempts were made to address this violation with defendant is June 2006, I was unable to meet with defendant until July 10, 2006. At that meeting, defendant admitted to smoking a " blunt"of marijuana that he obtained from a friend named " Kenny." Defendant stated he did not have any more of the " Big blunt"remaining. On July 7, 2006, I contacted Kroll Laboratories, with whom we have a national drug testing contract, to compare the nanogram levels of THC from the positive urine sample submitted June 14, 2006, with the positive urine sample submitted June 21, 2006. I spoke with a physician who reported that nanogram level for the positive urine sample submitted on June 14, 2006, was 46 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml); however, the positive urine sample submitted June 21, 2006, was 72 ng/ml which constitutes new use of marijuana. On June 29, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine sample at ARTS/Crosspoint that returned positive for the presence of marijuana. I addressed this positive test with defendant on July 10, 2006. Again, defendant admitted smoking marijuana from the same " blunt." I contacted Kroll Laboratories on July 10, 2006, and spoke with a physician who reported that positive urine sample submitted June 29, 2006, was 116 ng/ml which constitutes new use of marijuana. On July 13, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine sample at ARTS/Crosspoint that returned positive for the presence of marijuana and cocaine. I addressed this with defendant on August 2, 2006. Defendant admitted he was smoking marijuana he obtained from " Kenny." Defendant was surprised he tested positive for cocaine but related his friends Big often smoke " primo"which is marijuana laced with cocaine. On July 20, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine sample at ARTS/Crosspoint that returned positive for the presence of marijuana. I addressed this with defendant on August 2, 2006. Defendant admitted smoking marijuana that he obtained from " Kenny." Defendant further admitted smoking marijuana on a regular basis since May 28, 2006. Defendant Big stated his last use of marijuana was on July 31, 2006. Defendant was told his ng/ml level must decrease from this point forward or I would request he be returned to court for a violation hearing. On August 2, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine sample at ARTS/Crosspoint that returned positive for the presence of marijuana. I addressed this with defendant on August 2, 2006, and he admitted smoking marijuana on July 31, 2006.

Case 1:01-cr-00321-LTB

Document 1173

Filed 09/14/2006

Page 4 of 4

On August 28, 2006, defendant submitted a random urine sample at ARTS/Crosspoint that returned positive for the presence of marijuana. This positive test result has not yet been addressed directly with defendant. However, on August 28, 2006, I received correspondence from defendant' dual diagnosis counselor at ARTS/Crosspoint that she met s with defendant on that same date and defendant admitted using alcohol and marijuana the previous week. Nanogram levels were not checked based on the fact defendant submitted negative urine samples on August 16, 2006, and August 23, 2006.