Free Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Document 51 Filed 08/14/2006 PROB 12M Case 1:02-cr-00515-WDM (10/01-D/CO) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Page 1 of 3

U. S. A. vs. Matthew W. Rosen

Docket No. 02-cr-00515-WDM-01

Petition for Issuance of Arrest Warrant for Violations of Supervised Release COMES NOW, Thomas Meyer, PROBATION OFFICER OF THE COURT presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of Matthew W. Rosen who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Truman Hobbs sitting in the court at Montgomery, Alabama, on the 26th day of July, 1993, who fixed the period of supervision at ten (10) years, commencing December 24, 1998, 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 submit to a drug test when ordered to do so by a Probation Officer. If deemed necessary by the Probation Officer, the defendant shall participate in a substance abuse treatment program as directed by the Probation Officer. The defendant shall participate in a mental health treatment program as directed by the Probation Officer.

2.

Jurisdiction was transferred from the Middle District of Alabama to the District of Colorado on October 17, 2002. Conditions were modified on November 4, 2002, to include the following added special condition: 3. The defendant shall reside in a Community Corrections Center for a period of up to 120 days, to commence as directed by the Probation Officer, and shall observe the rules of that facility.

Conditions were modified on November 26, 2002, to include the following added special condition: 4. The defendant shall participate in a program of testing and treatment for 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 the treatment as directed by the Probation Officer.

On February 1, 2006, the defendant was released on an appearance bond with a special condition of electronic monitoring until his supervised release violation hearing could be heard. RESPECTFULLY PRESENTING PETITION FOR ACTION OF COURT FOR CAUSE AS FOLLOWS: Petitioner states there is probable cause to believe that the Defendant has violated a condition of his supervised release as more particularly described in the attachment which is incorporated by reference. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3606, Petitioner requests that the Court issue a warrant for the arrest of the Defendant who violated a condition of his supervised release and that this petition and the warrant be sealed until after Defendant' arrest. s I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing matters are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this 11th day of August, 2006. s/ Thomas Meyer Thomas Meyer, Probation Officer

ORDER OF THE COURT Based upon the foregoing, I find probable cause exists to believe the Defendant has violated several conditions of his supervised release. I order that a warrant for Defendant' arrest be issued and that this Petition and Order, as well as s the warrant, be sealed until Defendant' arrest. s s/ Walker D. Miller Dated this 14th day of August, 2006. ___________________________________________ WALKER D. MILLER, United States District Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00515-WDM

Document 51
ATTACHMENT

Filed 08/14/2006

Page 2 of 3

Attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference is a true copy of the conditions of supervised release which were read and provided to the defendant on December 29, 1998, and reviewed again January 29, 1999, August 7, 2002, and December 4, 2002, acknowledging that the conditions had been read to him and that he had been given a copy of them. The term of supervised release commenced December 24, 1998. 22. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about January 25, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, 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 1, 2006, I received notification that the urine sample provided by the defendant at ARTS on January 25, 2006, had tested positive for cocaine. Kroll Laboratory subsequently confirmed that the sample was positive for cocaine. I met with the defendant on February 16, 2006, and he denied use of cocaine on or about January 25, 2006. The defendant was placed back into the drug treatment program at Addiction Research and Treatment Services (ARTS) commencing February 24, 2006, where he has been participating in once a month individual counseling sessions since that date. On February 7, 2006, the defendant began home confinement until his supervised release violation hearing could be heard. 23. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about January 30, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, 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 8, 2006, I received initial notification that the urine sample provided by the defendant at ARTS on January 30, 2006, had tested positive for cocaine. Kroll Laboratory subsequently confirmed that the sample was positive for cocaine. I met with the defendant on February 16, 2006, and he denied use of cocaine on or about January 30, 2006. 24. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG TESTING AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

The defendant failed to submit a urine sample at ARTS, the testing and treatment program in which the probation officer had directed him to participate, on February 13, 2006, which is a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On February 14, 2006, I received notification from ARTS that the defendant failed to submit a urine sample there on February 13, 2006. On February 21, 2006, the defendant told me that he failed to provide a urine specimen on February 13, 2006, because he was had taken pain medication for dental work. 25. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

The defendant failed to keep counseling appointment at Addiction Research and Treatment Services (ARTS), the testing and treatment program in which the probation officer had directed him to participate, on July 11, 2006, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts:

Case 1:02-cr-00515-WDM

Document 51

Filed 08/14/2006

Page 3 of 3

On July 11, 2006, I received notification from ARTS that the defendant failed to attend his individual counseling session on that date which had been scheduled for 11:00 a.m. The defendant was said to have called ARTS at 11:50 a.m. and rescheduled his appointment. On July 31, 2006, the defendant told me that he had overslept, therefore missed the counseling appointment. 26. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about July 19, 2005, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, 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 July 25, 2006, I received notification that the urine sample provided by the defendant at ARTS on July 19, 2006, had tested positive for cocaine (while the defendant was on home confinement status). On July 31, 2006, I met with the defendant and asked him if he had used cocaine on or about that date. The defendant responded by stating that he did not want to answer that question at that time. 27. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about July 31, 2005, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, 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 August 31, 2006, I obtained a urine sample from the defendant at the U.S. Probation Office. On August 4, 2006, I received notification that the urine sample provided by the defendant at the U.S. Probation Office on July 31, 2006, tested positive for cocaine (while the defendant was on home confinement status).