Free Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

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

Document 110

Filed 09/19/2007

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 imposed. 2. Testing and treatment for drug abuse as directed. At a Violation Hearing held before Judge Nottingham on June 9, 2006, the defendant admitted to all seven listed violations, and his supervision was continued to include up to 180 days in an approved Community Corrections Center.

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 19th day of September, 2007, 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
s/ Edward W. Nottingham ___________________________________________ Edward W. Nottingham Chief U.S. District Judge U.S. Probation Officer Place Denver, Colorado Date September 18, 2007

Case 1:00-cr-00256-EWN

Document 110

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 2 of 3

ATTACHMENT The defendant's signature on August 29, 2005, 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. At a Violation Hearing before Judge Nottingham on June 9, 2006, the defendant admitted to all seven listed violations, and his supervision was continued to include up to 180 days in an approved Community Corrections Center. The defendant has since committed the following additional violations of his supervision: (1) POSSESSION AND/OR USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE: On or about August 17, 2007, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, specifically methamphetamine, 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 Correctional Management Inc. (CMI) that tested positive for metabolites of methamphetamine. The defendant subsequently admitted to the probation officer that he had knowingly ingested methamphetamine. (2) FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN TREATMENT AS DIRECTED: The defendant failed to report to Correctional Management Inc. (CMI), the testing and treatment program in which the probation officer had directed him to participate, on August 16, 2007. This constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On August 15, 2007, the probation officer left written instructions for the defendant on the front door of his residence to report to CMI the following day to submit a urine sample for testing purposes. The defendant failed to report. This was not an excused absence. (3) FAILURE TO REPORT TO THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AS DIRECTED: The defendant was instructed by the probation officer to report to the U.S. Probation Office on August 16, 2007. The defendant failed to comply, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On August 15, 2007, the probation officer left written instructions for the defendant on the front door of his residence to report to the Probation Office the following day to meet with his probation officer. The defendant failed to report. This was not an excused absence.

Case 1:00-cr-00256-EWN

Document 110

Filed 09/19/2007

Page 3 of 3

(4) FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN TREATMENT AS DIRECTED: The defendant failed to report to CMI, on August 31, 2007. This constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On the aforementioned date, the defendant failed to report to CMI to attend a scheduled substance abuse treatment evaluation at 10:00 a.m. with therapist Kristen Parker. This was not an excused absence. (5) FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN TREATMENT AS DIRECTED: The defendant failed to report to CMI on September 16, 2007. This constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On the aforementioned date, the defendant failed to submit a scheduled urine sample for testing purposes at CMI. This was not an excused absence. (6) FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN TREATMENT AS DIRECTED: The defendant failed to report to CMI on September 17, 2007. This constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On the aforementioned date, the defendant failed to report to CMI to attend a second scheduled substance abuse treatment evaluation at 2:30 p.m. with therapist Rod Hoevet. This was not an excused absence.