Free Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado - Colorado


File Size: 45.3 kB
Pages: 3
Date: February 22, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: Colorado
Category: District Court of Colorado
Author: unknown
Word Count: 994 Words, 6,041 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cod/24642/41.pdf

Download Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado ( 45.3 kB)


Preview Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado
Case 1:04-cr-00383-REB

Document 41

Filed 02/22/2007

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO U. S. A. vs. MICHAEL ROWE Docket Number: 04-cr-00383-REB-01

Petition for Issuance of Arrest Warrant Due to Violation of Supervised Release COMES NOW, Carlos Morales, probation officer of the court, presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of Michael Rowe who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Robert E. Blackburn sitting in the court at Denver, Colorado, on the 21st day of January, 2005, 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 and shall pay the cost of treatment as directed by the probation officer.

As modified on December 22, 2006: 2. The defendant shall reside in a residential reentry center for a period of up to six (6) months to commence at the direction of the probation officer, and shall observe the rules of that facility.

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 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 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/ Robert E. Blackburn Robert E. Blackburn U.S. District Judge

s/ Carlos Morales Carlos Morales U.S. Probation Officer Place: Denver, Colorado Date: February 16, 2007

Case 1:04-cr-00383-REB

Document 41

Filed 02/22/2007

Page 2 of 3

ATTACHMENT On January 23, 2006, and again January 4, 2007, 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 January 21, 2005. The defendant has committed the following violations of supervised release: 1) POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE: On January 31, 2007, the defendant possessed and used a controlled substance, marijuana, which had not been prescribed to him by a physician. This constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On February 9, 2007, notification was received reflecting that the defendant submitted a urine specimen at Independence House South Federal Residential Reentry Center on January 31, 2006, which tested positive for marijuana. This specimen was confirmed positive for marijuana metabolites by Kroll Laboratories on February 12, 2007. 2) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF RESIDENTIAL REENTRY CENTER: On January 31, 2007, the defendant failed to comply with rules of Independence House South Federal Residential Reentry Center by failing to remain accountable for his whereabouts. This constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On January 31, 2007, an incident report was received from the Independence House South Federal Residential Reentry Center indicating that the defendant signed out for job search at 7:00 a.m., on January 31, 2007, and was scheduled to return at 3:00 p.m. At 10:35 a.m. the defendant called from an unregistered phone number indicating that he was unable to locate the "Labor Place." The defendant failed to call into the Independence House South Federal within 2 hours after his departure as required. When confronted, he reported to staff that he had called at 9:30 a.m. and spoke to an overnight staff member. It is noted that the overnight staff member whom the defendant reported speaking to was not at the facility as his shift has ended at 8:00 am. The defendant was then instructed to return to the Residential Reentry Center. He remained unaccountable for approximately 3 hours and 35 minutes.

3)

Case 1:04-cr-00383-REB Document 41 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 3 of 3 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF RESIDENTIAL REENTRY CENTER: On February 14, 2007, the defendant failed to comply with rules of Independence House South Federal Residential Reentry Center by failing to remain accountable for his whereabouts. This constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release.

This charge is based on the following facts: On February 14, 2007, an incident report was received from Independence House South Federal Residential Reentry Center indicating that the defendant signed out for employment on February 14, 2007, at 12:40 p.m. The defendant called the Residential Reentry Center as required at 3:03 p.m. to verify his arrival at his place of employment. At 4:30 p.m. staff from the Residential Reentry Center called the defendant's employment to verify his location. They were told that the defendant was not scheduled to work and was not at his place of employment. The defendant failed to report his departure from his place of employment and his whereabouts where unknown. Attempts to locate the defendant were made, but were unsuccessful until approximately 6:05 p.m. At that time the defendant called and stated that he was at his place of employment. Staff instructed the defendant to call back immediately with a supervisor; however, he did not do so until approximately 6:50 p.m. It was later confirmed through the defendant's employment records that he did not clock in to work until 6:49 p.m.