Free Order Modifying Conditions of Supervision - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00376-WDM
PROB 12M (10/01-D/CO)

Document 33

Filed 01/29/2008

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for DISTRICT OF COLORADO

U. S. A. vs. CLAUDE GAY, JUNIOR

Docket No. 01-cr-00376-WDM-01

Petition for Modification of Conditions of Supervised Release COMES NOW, Emily Valentin, PROBATION OFFICER OF THE COURT presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of Claude Gay, Junior, who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Walker D. Miller sitting in the court at Denver, Colorado, on the 24th day of April, 2002, who fixed the period of supervision at three years, commencing January 8, 2007, 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 not incur new credit charges or open additional lines of credit without the approval of the probation officer, unless the defendant is in compliance with the installment payment schedule. The defendant shall pay restitution in the amount of $2,807.00.

2.) 3.)

On March 23, 2007, the defendant's conditions of supervised release were modified to include: 4.) 5.) The defendant shall participate in mental health counseling, as directed by the probation officer. The defendant shall participate in a methadone maintenance program, as directed by the probation officer.

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 modification of the defendant's conditions of supervised release to include a special condition requiring that the defendant reside in a Residential Re-Entry Center (RRC) for a period of up to 180 days as directed by the probation officer, and shall observe the rules of that facility. I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing matters are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this 24th day of January, 2008. s/Emily Valentin Emily Valentin, Senior Probation Officer ORDER OF THE COURT Based upon the foregoing, I order that the defendant's conditions of supervised release be modified to include a special condition requiring the defendant to reside in and comply with the rules of a RRC, for a period of up to 180 days. Dated this 29th day of January, 2008

s/ Walker D. Miller
_______________________________________ WALKER D. MILLER, U.S. District Judge

Case 1:01-cr-00376-WDM

Document 33

Filed 01/29/2008

Page 2 of 3

ATTACHMENT On January 9, 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 on January 8, 2007. This petition is based on the following facts: On January 9, 2007, I met with the defendant and instructed him to attend a drug assessment at Correctional Psychology Associates (CPA) on January 23, 2007. The defendant attended the session as instructed and Dr. Rod Hoevet diagnosed the defendant with depressive disorder. At the time of the assessment, the defendant was taking lithium which had been prescribed for him to assist in treating his depression while he was incarcerated. Dr. Hoevet recommended that the defendant attend mental health treatment as well as be assessed by a psychiatrist to evaluate his need for medication. On February 23, 2007, I met with the defendant and questioned him about his drug use after he failed to submit urine specimens at Correctional Management Incorporated (CMI) on February 17, and 21, 2007. The defendant said that he did not provide the urine specimens because he had used heroin on two occasions. The defendant said that he has a very hard time staying away from illicit substances and he uses them to cope with his emotional pain. A urine specimen submitted by the defendant at CMI on February 23, 2007, tested positive for morphine. Due to the defendant's admission of using heroin and Dr. Hoevet's recommendation, the defendant's conditions of supervised release were modified on March 23, 2007, to include mental health counseling and methadone ingestion. In August 2007, the defendant began submitting urine specimens that were positive for opiates, however, this is not unusual since he had been prescribed painkillers by a doctor to treat his neck pain and migraines. On November 20, 2007, I received an interpretation of the defendant's drug results from Dr. Patricia Pizzo, of Kroll Laboratories. The primary metabolite of codeine is morphine, however, Dr. Pizzo found that the ratio of codeine to morphine was an indication that the morphine was not present as a metabolite of codeine but was from another source. Dr. Pizzo believes that based upon the results she analyzed, the defendant was using morphine or heroin. On November 28, 2007, the defendant admitted that he was abusing painkillers to help him cope with his physical pain. The defendant denied using heroin but admitted that he was taking morphine that had not been prescribed to him. I discussed with the defendant that ingesting another person's prescription is illegal. The defendant said that he was taking the morphine in addition to the painkillers that had been prescribed to him to help him deal with his neck pain and migraines. In order to address the defendant's ongoing abuse of prescription painkillers, I proposed that he reside in a Residential Re-Entry Center (RRC) for a period of up to 180 days so that his ingestion of medication could be closely monitored. The defendant and his attorney, Edward Pluss, agreed with this modification to the defendant's conditions of supervision. I received a signed fax copy of the "Waiver of Hearing to Modify Conditions of Probation/Supervised Release or Extend Supervision" form from Mr. Pluss on December 10, 2007, however, it was an extremely poor fax copy and therefore unusable.

Case 1:01-cr-00376-WDM

Document 33

Filed 01/29/2008

Page 3 of 3

On January 22, 2008, I met with the defendant and questioned him about his ongoing submission of urine specimens which are testing positive for morphine. The defendant admitted that he is ingesting morphine which has not been prescribed to him and he denied using heroin. He said that he gets the drug from his friend who was prescribed morphine to help him cope with the pain caused by his cancer. I again discussed with the defendant that taking another person's prescription medication was illegal. The defendant acknowledged that he knew this but that no other drug was as effective in relieving his migraines as morphine. I encouraged the defendant to meet with his doctor and find a medication that would treat his migraines but was not an opiate. He said that he would not take the morphine again and I warned him that if he tested positive for morphine while he was at Independence House, I would request a violation hearing. On that same date, respectively the defendant and his attorney, Edward Pluss, executed a form entitled "Waiver of Hearing to Modify Conditions of Probation/Supervised Release or Extend Term of Supervision" which waives the right to hearing and agrees to the proposed modification of the defendant's conditions of supervised release. Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas O'Rourke has been consulted and has no objection to this course of action.