Free Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00256-EWN
PROB 12 (4/96-D/CO)

Document 98

Filed 05/16/2006

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

U.S.A. vs. ROBERT JOHN ROYBAL

Docket No. 00-cr-00256-EWN

Petition For Issuance of Arrest Warrant for Violation of Supervised Release COMES NOW, Edward C. Gadden, Probation Officer of the Court, presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of Robert John Roybal, who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Edward W. Nottingham, sitting on the Court in Denver, Colorado, on the 22nd day of December 2000, who fixed the period of supervision at three years, commencing August 26, 2005, and imposed the general terms and conditions theretofore adopted by the Court and also imposed special conditions and terms as follows: 1) $100 special assessment fee. 2) Testing and treatment for drug abuse as directed.

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 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 17th day of May, 2006, and ordered filed 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/ Edward C. Gadden
U.S. Probation Officer s/ Edward W. Nottingham ________________________________________ Edward W. Nottingham United States District Judge Place Date Denver, Colorado May 16, 2006

Case 1:00-cr-00256-EWN

Document 98

Filed 05/16/2006

Page 2 of 3

ATTACHMENT The defendant's signature on August 29, 2005, Exhibit A, acknowledged that the conditions of supervision had been read and explained to the defendant, that the defendant fully understood the conditions, and that the defendant was provided with a copy of the conditions. Supervision commenced August 26, 2005. The defendant has committed the following violations of supervision: (1) FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN TREATMENT AS DIRECTED: The defendant failed to report to the Addiction Research and Treatment Services program (ARTS), the testing and treatment program in which the probation officer had directed him to participate, on the following dates: September 12, 2005, March 10 and 16, 2006, April 10 and 18, 2006, and May 12, 2006. These constitute Grade C violations of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On the above dates, the defendant failed to submit urine samples at ARTS for drug testing purposes. These are not excused absences. (2) ASSOCIATION WITH A PERSON CONVICTED OF A FELONY: In September of 2005, the defendant began associating with Gidget Sanchez, an individual who had been convicted of a felony in the U.S. District Court. The defendant had not obtained prior permission to associate with Ms. Sanchez, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervision. This charge is based on the following facts: On September 23, 2005, Senior U.S. Probation Officer Gary Kruck advised this probation officer that Community Corrections staff members had observed the defendant transporting Gidget Sanchez to the Independence House facility in his personal vehicle. Ms. Sanchez was on active supervision with Officer Kruck at that time, having been convicted of fraud in U.S. Dkt. No. 03-cr-00519. Ms. Sanchez had recently been placed into the Independence House facility for repeated non-compliant behavior. The defendant admitted that he and Ms. Sanchez had been romantically involved for some time. He had not advised the Probation Department that he was associating with Ms. Sanchez, nor had he obtained prior permission from the Probation Department as required. Ms. Sanchez is presently in violation status. (3) FAILURE TO WORK REGULARLY: The defendant has failed to maintain employment since February 2006, without being excused from working by the probation officer. This constitutes a Grade C violation of supervision. This charge is based on the following facts: On February 27, 2006, the defendant's supervisor at Proctor Companies, in Centennial, Colorado, advised this probation officer that the defendant was being terminated from his draftsman position for repeatedly failing to adhere to his work schedule and failing to call his supervisor to explain his absence from work. The defendant told his probation officer that the transmission on his personal vehicle was broken and this prevented him from being able to travel to work. He was instructed by his probation officer to seek employment closer to his residence, preferably a position that he could travel to via the public transportation system. He was instructed to call his probation officer at the end of each week to report his employment search progress, specifically information regarding where he had

Case 1:00-cr-00256-EWN

Document 98

Filed 05/16/2006

Page 3 of 3

filled out job applications. The defendant has failed to comply with reporting weekly with his job search progress. He remains unemployed.

(4) FAILURE TO SUBMIT WRITTEN MONTHLY REPORTS: The defendant has failed to submit his monthly supervision reports to the U.S. Probation Department for the months of February, March, and April, 2006, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervision. This charge is based on the following facts: The defendant has failed to submit any supervision reports or income documentation for the months stated above. (5) FAILURE TO REPORT TO THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AS DIRECTED: On April 11, 2006, the defendant was instructed by the probation officer to report to the U.S. Probation Department on April 12, 2006, at 11:00 a.m. The defendant failed to comply, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervision. This charge is based on the following facts: On April 11, 2006, the probation officer left written reporting instructions for the defendant on the front door of his current residence, and also left verbal reporting instructions on the voice mail of his current cellular telephone. The defendant failed to report. (6) FAILURE TO REPORT TO THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AS DIRECTED: On April 17, 2006, the defendant was instructed by the probation officer to report to the U.S. Probation Department on April 18, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. The defendant failed to comply, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervision. This charge is based on the following facts: On April 17, 2006, this probation officer verbally spoke with the defendant on his cellular telephone. The defendant was advised that he was to immediately revert back to intensive urine testing at ARTS as the result of his several missed urine testing dates. He was also instructed to report to the probation office the following day to further discuss his ongoing noncompliant behavior. He was advised that he would have to report to ARTS immediately after that meeting for urine testing. The defendant again failed to report to the probation office. He also failed to report to ARTS as instructed for drug testing. (7) POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE: On or about April 19, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, specifically cocaine, 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 the aforementioned date, the defendant submitted a urine sample at ARTS that tested positive for metabolites of cocaine. The defendant admitted to his probation officer that he had recently ingested both cocaine and marijuana, however, his urine on that date did not test positive for metabolites marijuana, only for metabolites of cocaine.