Free Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cr-00019-EWN
PROB 12 (02/05-D/CO)

Document 54

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO U. S. A. vs. GILLIAN CARISSA SANDOVAL Docket Number: 04-cr-00019-EWN-01

Petition for Issuance of Arrest Warrant Due to Violation of Supervised Release COMES NOW, Thomas Meyer, probation officer of the court, presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of Gillian Carissa Sandoval who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Edward W. Nottingham sitting in the court at Denver, Colorado, on the 24th day of February, 2006, who fixed the period of supervision at two (2) years, 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 she is released from the program by the probation officer. While participating in this program, she shall abstain from the use of alcohol or other intoxicants. She shall pay all costs associated with this program. The defendant shall participate in a program for mental health treatment, as directed by the probation officer, until she is released from the program by the probation officer. She shall pay all costs of such treatment. The court authorizes the probation officer to release to the treatment agency all psychological reports and/or the presentence report, for continuity of treatment. The defendant shall reside in a community corrections center for a period of four (4) months, to commence upon release from custody, and shall observe the rules of that facility.

2.

3.

RESPECTFULLY PRESENTING PETITION FOR ACTION OF COURT FOR CAUSE AS FOLLOWS: See attachment hereto and herein incorporated by reference. PRAYING THAT THE COURT WILL ORDER the issuance of a warrant for violations 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 29th day of February, 2008, and ordered filed under seal 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/Thomas Meyer Thomas Meyer U.S. Probation Officer s/ Edward W. Nottingham Edward W. Nottingham Chief U.S. District Judge Place: Denver, Colorado Date: February 28, 2008

Case 1:04-cr-00019-EWN

Document 54

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 2 of 4

ATTACHMENT On August 10, 2006, the conditions of supervised release were read and explained to the defendant. On that date, she acknowledged in writing that the conditions had been read to her, that she fully understood the conditions, and that she was provided a copy of them. The term of supervised release commenced on August 8, 2006. The defendant has committed the following violations of supervised release: 1. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG TESTING AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

On or about December 10, 2006, the defendant failed to submit a urine specimen as required at Correctional Management Incorporated (CMI), the testing and treatment program in which the probation officer had directed her to participate, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On December 10, 2006, I received notification from CMI that the defendant failed to provide a urine sample on that same date. On December 11, 2006, the defendant informed me that she had been in Greeley, Colorado visiting her grandmother and former in-laws. On her return trip to Denver, the car she was riding in had mechanical problems and she was unable to return to Denver in time to provide a urine specimen. 2. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DUAL DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

The defendant failed to keep her counseling appointment at CMI, the testing and treatment program in which the probation officer had directed her to participate, on December 14, 2006, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On December 15, 2006, I received notification from CMI that the defendant failed to attend her individual counseling session scheduled for December 14, 2006. The defendant had not been excused from attending treatment by her probation officer. 3. FAILURE TO SUBMIT WRITTEN REPORTS:

The defendant failed to submit written reports for the months of December 2007, and January 2008, within the first five days of the months of January 2007, and February 2008, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: The defendant failed to submit monthly supervision reports for the months of December 2007, and January 2008. To this date, I still have not received those reports.

Case 1:04-cr-00019-EWN

Document 54

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 3 of 4

4.

FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG TESTING AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

On or about January 28, 2008, the defendant failed to submit a urine specimen as required at CMI, the testing and treatment program in which the probation officer had directed her to participate, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On January 28, 2008, the defendant failed to provide a urine sample at CMI. On January 29, 2008, at approximately 8:55 a.m., I left a voice mail message for the defendant instructing her to report to CMI to provide a urine specimen on that same date in response to her failure to provide a urine sample on January 28, 2008. Furthermore, in response to the missed urine specimen collection, I informed the defendant that her urine collections were regressed from Phase III (one sample per month) to Phase II (two samples per month) effective January 30, 2008. 5. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG TESTING AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

On or about January 29, 2008, February 4, 2008, February 21, 2008, and February 25, 2008, the defendant failed to submit urine specimens as required at CMI, the testing and treatment program in which the probation officer had directed her to participate, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On January 29, 2008, at approximately 8:55 a.m., I left a voice mail message for the defendant instructing her to report to CMI to provide a urine specimen on that same date in response to her failure to provide a urine specimen on January 28, 2008. However, the defendant failed to provide a urine specimen on January 29, 2008, as instructed. The defendant subsequently also failed to provide urine samples at CMI on February 4, 2008, February 21, 2008, and February 25, 2008. 6. FAILURE TO REPORT TO THE PROBATION OFFICER AS DIRECTED:

On or about February 4, 2008, the defendant was instructed to report to the probation officer at 2:00 p.m. on February 5, 2008, and she failed to so report, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On February 4, 2008, I left a voice mail message instructing the defendant to report to my office on February 5, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. and to bring with her the monthly reports for the months of December 2007, and January 2008. The defendant failed to report to the Probation Office on February 5, 2008. On February 5, 2008, I unsuccessfully attempted to contact the defendant via telephone. 7. FAILURE TO REPORT TO THE PROBATION OFFICER AS DIRECTED:

On or about February 21, 2008, the defendant was instructed to report to the probation officer at 10:00

Case 1:04-cr-00019-EWN

Document 54

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 4 of 4

a.m. on February 22, 2008, and she failed to so report, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On February 21, 2008, Supervising U.S. Probation Officer (SUSPO) Grace Sena and I went to the defendant's residence in an attempt to instruct her to report to the Probation Office as prior attempts to have her report in person were unsuccessful. The defendant answered the door and acknowledged that she had received my letter with reporting instructions but stated that the letter had instructed her to report on November 15, 2008 (this was a typographical error and should have indicated February 15, 2008). The defendant was instructed by both myself and SUSPO Sena to report to the Probation Office on February 22, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. The defendant subsequently failed to report to the Probation Office on February 22, 2008. 8. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

From about January 23, 2008, through about February 19, 2008, the defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, which had not been prescribed to her by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On February 21, 2008, SUSPO Grace Sena and I went to the defendant's residence. We met with the defendant who reiterated that she had used cocaine approximately two days after her January 21, 2008, employment termination. Furthermore, she stated that she had used cocaine on two additional occasions since then, most recently on or about February 19, 2008. She was instructed to report to the probation Office on February 22, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. to further discuss the matter but failed to report.