Free Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00192-LTB
PROB 12 (02/05-D/CO)

Document 42

Filed 02/09/2007

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO U. S. A. vs. ISAAC VIGIL Docket Number: 01-cr-00192-LTB-01

Petition for Issuance of Arrest Warrant Due to Violation of Supervised Release COMES NOW, Michael Wilson, probation officer of the court, presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of Isaac Vigil who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Lewis T.Babcock sitting in the court at Denver, Colorado, on the 29th 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.

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 a warrant for the arrest of the defendant 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 9th day of February, 2007, 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/ Michael Wilson Michael Wilson U.S. Probation Officer s/Lewis T. Babcock Lewis T. Babcock Chief Judge Place: Denver, Colorado Date: February 7, 2007

Case 1:01-cr-00192-LTB

Document 42

Filed 02/09/2007

Page 2 of 5

ATTACHMENT On September 5, 2006, the conditions of supervised release were read and explained to the defendant. On that date, he acknowledged in writing that the conditions had been read to him, that he fully understood the conditions, and that he was provided a copy of them. The term of supervised release commenced August 30, 2006. The defendant has committed the following violations of supervised release. 1. NEW LAW VIOLATION: FALSE STATEMENT

On December 8, 2006, the defendant submitted a U. S. Probation Monthly Supervision Report form pertaining to November 2006 which contained a material false statement, contrary to the mandatory condition of supervision and in violation of 18 U.S. Code, Section 1001, a Class D felony, and a Grade B violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On December 8, 2006, the defendant reported to the U. S. Probation office in Denver, Colorado. He submitted his November 2006 Monthly Supervision Report form wherein he falsely answered, in writing, " No"to the question, " Were you contacted by any law enforcement officers?" Before submitting the form, the defendant signed and dated the form under the declaration, " certify that all information furnished is I complete and accurate." Further, the form contains the false statement advisement, warning the offender of the consequences of falsifying the form. As the defendant was fully aware, ten days earlier on November 28, 2006, he had entered the US Bank at 10190 East Colfax Avenue in Aurora, Colorado. After presenting a suspect $20,000 check to a bank staff member, the defendant was subject to an investigative detention and questioned about the check by an Aurora, Colorado police officer. The check was determined to be counterfeit and the account non-existent. Because of the nature of the defendant' inquiry regarding the check, the responding officer believed that s proof of intent to defraud the bank was lacking and the defendant was permitted to leave the bank. As he was departing, the defendant told the police officer that he would contact the probation officer. The Aurora Police Department seized the counterfeit check and assigned this matter case number 2006-55937. Upon submitting the November 2006 Monthly Report Form, the defendant was confronted with the fact of his police questioning. The defendant said that he received the check from Frank Arko, a man he described as a wealthy former Bureau of Prisons (BOP) inmate. As verified, Arko remains a BOP inmate with a November 2008 release date. 2. FAILURE TO ADVISE OF POLICE CONTACT WITHIN 72 HOURS:

On November 28, 2006, the defendant was questioned by an Aurora, Colorado police officer. The defendant failed to advise within 72 hours of this questioning by a law enforcement officer, contrary to Condition 11, which is a Grade C violation of supervised release.

Case 1:01-cr-00192-LTB

Document 42

Filed 02/09/2007

Page 3 of 5

This charge is based on the following facts: As noted above, on November 28, 2006, the defendant entered the US Bank at 10190 East Colfax Avenue in Aurora, Colorado. The defendant then presented a $20,000 check to a personal banker, inquiring if the check was good. A teller was consulted while staff notified the police. Bank staff told the responding Aurora Police Department officer that the check was false, written on a non-existent account. The defendant was questioned about the check by the police officer. Because of the nature of the defendant' s inquiry regarding the check, the responding officer believed that proof of intent to defraud the bank was lacking and the defendant was permitted to leave the bank. As he departed the bank, the defendant told the officer that he would contact the probation officer. The defendant is well aware of his duty to report police questioning. This duty was made clear during his initial probation office interview of September 5, 2006. His requirement to report police contact is also documented with his signed acknowledgment page from the probation office Orientation To Supervision manual provided to the defendant that day. The defendant failed to contact the probation officer and did not disclose the police contact until confronted at the probation office December 8, 2006. Supervised release Condition 11 requires the defendant to report law enforcement contact within 72 hours. 3. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG ABUSE COUNSELING AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

The defendant failed to attend scheduled drug abuse counseling sessions at CMI, the contracted treatment agency to which the defendant had been directed to participate, on December 7, 2006, December 19, 2006, and January 24, 2007, each of which is contrary to the Special Condition and a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: The defendant was instructed to participate in drug abuse treatment at CMI on September 20, 2006. He signed paperwork which noted his assignment to Phase 1 random urinalysis and weekly individual treatment sessions. Initially, the defendant attended each therapy appointment, including five weekly sessions in October 2006 alone. Subsequently, the defendant attended all three scheduled appointments in November 2006. Thereafter, the defendant attended only one more scheduled session on December 11, 2006. He failed to attend appointments on December 7, 2006, December 19, 2006, and January 24, 2007. According to his assigned therapist, she attempted to reach the defendant for weeks before speaking with him and arranging the January 24, 2007 session. The defendant has been discharged from therapy based upon his non-attendance. The probation office received written notification from CMI for each missed appointment. 4. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG ABUSE TESTING AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

The defendant failed to attend random urine collection appointments at CMI, the contracted treatment and testing agency to which the defendant had been directed to participate, on October 7, 2006, October 18, 2006, November 2, 2006, November 19, 2006, December 10, 2006, January 17, 2007, and January 28, 2007, each of which is contrary to the Special Condition and a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts:

Case 1:01-cr-00192-LTB

Document 42

Filed 02/09/2007

Page 4 of 5

The defendant was instructed to participate in drug abuse testing at CMI on September 20, 2006. He signed treatment agency paperwork on September 23, 2006, which noted his assignment to Phase 1-D random urinalysis. Initially, the defendant attended three October 2006 urine collection appointments. Subsequently, the defendant failed to attend urine collection appointments on November 2, 2006, November 19, 2006, December 10, 2006, January 17, 2007 and January 28, 2007. Subsequently, the defendant was discharged from therapy and testing based upon his non-attendance. The probation office received written notification from CMI for each missed appointment. The defendant was confronted November 21, 2006, regarding his missed Phase 1-D random urine appointments. He responded that he had mistakenly believed that he was designated P1-B. When asked how many P1-B urine samples he had submitted, he answered that he had submitted none. 5. FAILURE TO REPORT AS DIRECTED:

The defendant failed to report as directed on January 8, 2007, January 10, 2007, and January 16, 2007, each instance contrary to Condition 2 and a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On January 4, 2007, I telephoned the defendant' home and reached his brother. I asked that the defendant s be told to speak with me promptly. The defendant did not respond. On January 8, 2007, I called the defendant' home telephone and left a voice mail message at 8:15 am directing him to speak with me and to s keep trying until he reached me directly. Later that day, at 6:34 pm, the defendant contacted my office and left a voice mail message acknowledging my message and stating that he would report to the probation office the next day after a 3:00 pm job interview. The defendant failed to report. On January 10, 2007, I called the defendant' home telephone and again left a voice mail message directing him to speak with me s and to keep trying until he reached me directly. The defendant failed to respond. On January 12, 2007, I attempted to contact the defendant at his home at1313 Xenia Street, unit 207, in Denver, Colorado. After knocking at his door, I left an appointment notice in his door jamb directing him to report to the probation office January 16, 2007, at 10:00 am. An identical appointment notice was placed into his mail box. The defendant failed to respond in any manner to these notices. The defendant is well aware of his duty to report as directed. This duty was made clear during his initial probation office interview of September 5, 2006. His requirement to report as directed is also documented with his signed acknowledgment page from the probation office Orientation To Supervision manual provided to the defendant that day. 6. FAILURE TO SUBMIT MONTHLY SUPERVISION REPORT FORMS:

The defendant failed to submit Monthly Supervision Report forms for September 2006, December 2006, and January 2007, each instance contrary to Condition 2 and a Grade C violation of supervised release.

Case 1:01-cr-00192-LTB

Document 42

Filed 02/09/2007

Page 5 of 5

This charge is based on the following facts: On September 5, 2006, the defendant was interviewed at the probation office and instructed fully as to his supervision responsibilities, including report form income documentation and due dates. He was provided with a copy of the Orientation To Supervision manual which fully explains the requirements for the proper submission of the forms. The defendant was also given a number of blank Monthly Supervision Report forms for his future use. His submission of October 2006 and November 2006 report forms further documents his awareness of the requirement. The September 2006 report form was due October 5, 2006. It was never received. The December 2006 form was due January 5, 2007. It was never received. The January 2007 form was due February 5, 2007. It has not been received.