Free Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00226-WDM
PROB 12M (10/01-D/CO)

Document 34

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for DISTRICT OF COLORADO

U. S. A. vs. CHARLES JOHNSON

Docket No. 00-cr-00226-WDM-01

Petition for Issuance of Arrest Warrant because of Violation of Supervised Release COMES NOW, Gary W. Phillips, PROBATION OFFICER OF THE COURT presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of Charles Johnson who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Walker D. Miller sitting in the court at Denver, Colorado, on the 22nd day of November, 2000, who fixed the period of supervision at five (5) years, commencing September 14, 2006, and imposed the general terms and conditions theretofore adopted by the court and also imposed special conditions and terms as follows: 1) Defendant shall participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug abuse, as directed by the probation officer.

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 27th day of December, 2006. s/ Gary W. Phillips Gary W. Phillips, Senior Probation Officer ORDER OF THE COURT Based upon the foregoing, I find probable cause exists to believe the Defendant has violated a condition of his supervised release. I order that a warrant for Defendant' arrest be issued and that this Petition and Order, as well as the s warrant, be sealed until Defendant' arrest. s Dated this 8th day January, 2007 s/ Walker D. Miller _______________________________________ WALKER D. MILLER, United States District Judge

Case 1:00-cr-00226-WDM

Document 34

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 2 of 3

ATTACHMENT On October 3, 2006, 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 September 14, 2006. The defendant committed the following violations of supervised release: 1. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about October 5, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, which had not been prescribed to him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On October 5, 2006, the defendant provided a random urine specimen at Correctional Management Incorporated (CMI) that tested positive for cocaine. On October 11, 2006, I confronted the defendant about the positive drug test and he adamantly denied using any drugs. 2. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about October 19, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, which had not been prescribed to him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On October 19, 2006, the defendant provided a random urine specimen at CMI that tested positive for cocaine. On October 27, 2006, I confronted the defendant about the positive drug test and he admitted to relapsing and " snorting"cocaine on approximately eight occasions. 3. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about November 28, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, which had not been prescribed to him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On November 28, 2006, the defendant provided a random urine specimen at CMI that tested positive for cocaine. On December 15, 2006, I confronted the defendant about the positive drug test and he denied any recent drug use. I told the defendant that I was considering modifying his conditions of supervised release to include placement in a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) based on his continued drug use and he was opposed to this modification. The defendant was advised that any further positive drug tests and/or other violations would result in revocation proceedings being initiated.

Case 1:00-cr-00226-WDM

Document 34

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 3 of 3

4.

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about December 13, 2006, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, which had not been prescribed to him by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On December 13, 2006, the defendant provided a random urine specimen at CMI that tested positive for cocaine. 5. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

The defendant failed to provide a urine sample at CMI, the testing and treatment program in which the probation officer had directed him to participate, on November 13, 2006, 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 November 13, 2006. On November 13, 2006, the defendant called my office and left a voice message stating that he was working late and would not be able to provide a urine specimen as directed this date. 6. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG TREATMENT AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

The defendant failed to attend substance abuse treatment at CMI, the substance abuse treatment program in which the probation officer had directed him to participate, November 20, 2006, 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 participate in individual drug counseling on November 20, 2006. On November 21, 2006, I confronted the defendant about his missed individual counseling session and he said that he was running late to his session because he had to pick up his child from daycare. He said that he called his counselor who told him since he would be extremely late for the session, it would be rescheduled for the following week.