Free Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00374-EWN
PROB 12 (02/05-D/CO)

Document 46

Filed 10/25/2006

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO U. S. A. vs. DONALD LESTER Docket Number: 01-cr-00374-EWN-01 Petition on Supervised Release COMES NOW, Emily Valentin, probation officer of the court, presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of Donald Lester who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Edward W. Nottingham sitting in the court at Denver, Colorado, on the 18th day of September, 2002, 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 and alcohol 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.

On July 8, 2005, the defendant' original term of supervised release was revoked and he was sentenced to six months s imprisonment to be followed by 30 months supervised release. All previous conditions of supervised release were ordered to remain in full force and effect. RESPECTFULLY PRESENTING PETITION FOR ACTION OF COURT FOR CAUSE AS FOLLOWS: See attached hereto and herein 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 25th day of October, 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/ Emily Valentin Emily Valentin Senior U.S. Probation Officer s/ Edward W. Nottingham Edward W. Nottingham United States District Judge Place: Denver, Colorado Date: October 20, 2006

Case 1:01-cr-00374-EWN

Document 46

Filed 10/25/2006

Page 2 of 4

ATTACHMENT Attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference is a true copy of the original conditions of supervised release signed by the defendant on November 21, 2005, and April 10, 2006. His signature on these occasions 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 same. The defendant' term of s supervised release re-commenced on November 15, 2005. This petition is based on the following facts: 1. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG TESTING AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

On the following dates, the defendant failed to provide urine specimens at Addiction Research and Treatment Services (ARTS), the testing and treatment program to which the probation officer had originally directed him to submit urine specimens: July 17, August 14, 18, 23, 30, September 5, and 14, 2006. This constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: The Probation Department received written notification from ARTS that the defendant failed to submit urine specimens on the following dates: July 17, August 14, 18, 23, 30, September 5, and 14, 2006. On June 6, 2006, the defendant called me and said that there was an electrical fire at the house he shared with his father and the house burned. The defendant was also burned in the fire and required skin grafts. I allowed the defendant a period of recuperation due to his serious injuries and did not require him to submit urine specimens during that time. On July 11, 2006, I told the defendant that since he was feeling better, he needed to resume drug testing at ARTS. On July 17, 2006, the defendant failed to submit a urine specimen at ARTS even though I had instructed him to resume testing. I attempted to contact the defendant several times to address his failure to participate in drug testing, however, his telephone was not accepting calls. I finally contacted the defendant on August 2, 2006, and he said that his father had suffered a heart attack and that he had been taking care of him while he was in the hospital. I explained to the defendant that he was still obligated to participate in urine testing due to his drug abuse history. The defendant failed to submit urine specimens on August 14, 18, and 23, 2006, and I subsequently met with him on August 29, 2006. The defendant said that he was still caring for his father who remained hospitalized so I instructed him to provide me with documentation of this. I again reminded the defendant that he was to comply with drug testing. The defendant never provided me with documentation that I requested and he failed to submit a urine specimen on August 30, 2006, which was the day after our meeting. The defendant also failed to submit urine specimens on September 5, and 14, 2006. On October 3, 2006, I again met with the defendant and proposed a modification of his conditions of supervised release to include four months electronic home monitoring as a sanction for his noncompliance. I told the defendant that I would pursue this modification but that if he had further violations, I would request a warrant for his arrest. The defendant agreed to the modification, however, his noncompliance continued.

Case 1:01-cr-00374-EWN

Document 46

Filed 10/25/2006

Page 3 of 4

2.

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about October 3, 2006, the defendant used or administered controlled substances, cocaine and amphetamine/methamphetamine, which had not been prescribed to him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On September 28, 2006, after numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact the defendant on his telephone, I sent the defendant a letter instructing him to report for an office appointment with me on October 3, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of the meeting was to question the defendant about his failure to provide urine specimens as well as his failure to stay in contact with me. The defendant reported to my office as instructed. The defendant was very emotional and was crying. The defendant said that he failed to submit urine specimens because he could no longer afford a telephone, therefore, he could not access the urine testing notification line. I instructed the defendant to report to our new urine collection facility, Correctional Management, Incorporated (CMI), by 4:00 p.m., the following day for a urine testing intake. Before the defendant left, Senior U.S. Probation Officer Gary Kruck collected a urine specimen from him. On October 6, 2006, I received notification from the District of New Mexico urinalysis testing laboratory reflecting that the urine specimen submitted by the defendant on October 3, 2006, tested positive for cocaine and amphetamine/methamphetamine. 3. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about October 4, 2006, the defendant used or administered controlled substances, cocaine and amphetamine/methamphetamine, which had not been prescribed to him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On October 10, 2006, I received notification from the District of New Mexico urinalysis testing laboratory reflecting that the urine specimen submitted by the defendant at CMI, tested positive for cocaine and amphetamine/methamphetamine. 4. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG TREATMENT AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

The defendant failed to attend his assessment appointment on October 16, 2006, at Correctional Psychology Associates (CPA), the treatment program to which the probation officer had directed him to participate, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: During an office appointment on October 3, 2006, I instructed the defendant to attend an assessment appointment at CPA on October 16, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. The defendant signed the program plan indicating that he was aware of this appointment. On October 18, 2006, I received notification from CPA that the defendant failed to attend the appointment.

Case 1:01-cr-00374-EWN

Document 46

Filed 10/25/2006

Page 4 of 4