Free Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00249-WDM
PROB 12M (10/01-D/CO)

Document 25

Filed 04/09/2007

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for DISTRICT OF COLORADO

U. S. A. vs. CHARLES EDWARD CURTIS

Docket No. 01-cr-00249-WDM

Petition for Issuance of Arrest Warrant because of Violations Supervised Release COMES NOW, Gary R. Kruck, PROBATION OFFICER OF THE COURT presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of CHARLES EDWARD CURTIS who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Walker D. Miller sitting in the court at Denver, Colorado, on the 28th day of September, 2001, who fixed the period of supervision at three (3) years, commencing March 23, 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 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. 2) 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. RESPECTFULLY PRESENTING PETITION FOR ACTION OF COURT FOR CAUSE AS FOLLOWS: Petitioner states there is probable cause to believe that the Defendant has violated conditions 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 conditions 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 6th day of April, 2007. s/ Gary R. Kruck Gary R. Kruck, Senior U.S. Probation Officer ORDER OF THE COURT Based upon the foregoing, I find probable cause exists to believe the Defendant has violated conditions of his supervised release. I order that a warrant for Defendant' arrest be issued and that this s Petition and Order, as well as the warrant, be sealed until Defendant' arrest. s Dated this 9th day April, 2007 s/ Walker D. Miller _______________________________________ WALKER D. MILLER, United States District Judge

Case 1:01-cr-00249-WDM

Document 25
ATTACHMENT

Filed 04/09/2007

Page 2 of 2

On March 23, 2007, the conditions of supervised release were read and explained to the defendant. The defendant 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 March 23, 2007. The defendant has committed the following violations of supervised release: 1. FAILURE TO NOTIFY OFFICER OF CHANGE IN RESIDENCE:

On or about March 31, 2007, the defendant moved from his residence located at 836 Union Street, Unit A, Golden, Colorado 80401, and failed to notify his probation officer of this change at least ten days prior to the move, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On April 4, 2007, I spoke with the defendant' daughter, Denise Curtis. She told me that the defendant did s not stay at the residence for approximately four days and that she has not heard from the defendant. All attempts to contact the defendant have failed. The defendant' whereabouts are currently unknown. s 2.

FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

The defendant failed to provide a urine specimen at Correctional Management Incorporated (CMI), the testing and treatment program in which the probation officer had directed him to participate, on March 31, and April 4, 2007, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: The Probation Office received written notification from CMI that the defendant failed to provide a random urine specimen on March 31, and April 4, 2007. 3. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

The defendant failed to attend his scheduled substance abuse assessment at Correctional Management Incorporated (CMI), the testing and treatment program in which the probation officer had directed him to participate, on April 3, 2007, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: The Probation Office received written notification from CMI that the defendant failed to appear for his scheduled substance abuse assessment on April 3, 2007.