Free Response - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona LISA JENNIS SETTEL Assistant U.S. Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Telephone (602) 514-7500 [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, CR-00-0940-PHX-ROS Plaintiff, v. Manuel Acosta, Defendant. GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM AND THE SUPERVISED RELEASE DISPOSITION REPORT

Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through its attorneys, PAUL K.

15 CHARLTON, United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, and Lisa Jennis Settel, 16 Assistant United States Attorney, respectfully respond to defendant's Sentencing 17 Memorandum and the Supervised Release Disposition Report by the Probation Office. 18 The defendant was initially arrested in this matter on September 16, 2000, and 19 remained in custody until September 10, 2004. He then began his five years of supervised 20 release. During February 2005, he tested positive for methamphetamine. In March 2005, he 21 submitted one negative urine specimen but failed to submit to later testing. This led to his 22 arrest on July 6, 2005, for supervised release violations. He later admitted those violations, 23 and was placed at Recovery Homes residential substance abuse program on September 27, 24 2005, after serving 82 days in federal custody. He was terminated from Recovery Homes on 25 November 2, 2005, after testing positive for methamphetamine. A warrant was issued and he 26 was arrested against on January 24, 2006 for violating his supervised release. 27 During the short time that the defendant has been out of custody he has used 28 methamphetamine at least twice and has failed to comply with reporting release conditions.

Case 2:00-cr-00940-ROS

Document 77

Filed 04/06/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 The probation officers stated in her sentencing memorandum to this court dated March 1, 2 2006, that the defendant "is not a mere substance abuser, he is a methamphetamine trafficker 3 . . . ." The United States has no information that the defendant has trafficked in any illegal 4 substance since his arrest in 2000. While the United States understands the probation 5 officer's frustration with the defendant's performance while on supervised release, it appears 6 that he could still benefit from supervision. The United States recommends that the 7 defendant be sentenced to one year (not one year and a day) to be followed by the maximum 8 term of supervised release. This recommendation is consistent with the guidelines but is not 9 consistent with the probation officer's recommendation. The reason for the latter 10 inconsistency is because the United States disagrees that the defendant is unamenable to 11 supervision. A punishment of 12 months in prison is much more severe that his last sentence 12 of 71 days. The United States is hopeful that the longest possible sentence within the 13 guidelines will deter the defendant from future supervised release violations. 14 In the alternative, if this court, after speaking with the defendant, determines that he

15 needs intensive drug treatment, then the defendant could elect to be in the 500 hour drug 16 treatment program at the Bureau of Prisons. In order for the defendant to participate and 17 receive the full benefit of this program he would have to agree to participate and would have 18 to be incarcerated for 30 months.1 The reason for 30 months is because the defendant must 19 be designated to a prison, must complete a the nine-ten month drug program and serve the 20 mandatory six months at a halfway house. After completing the program and the stay at the 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 25 26 This information was provided to the government through Senior Probation Officer 27 Sharon D. Werner. 28 2
1

Case 2:00-cr-00940-ROS

Document 77

Filed 04/06/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 halfway house the defendant can get up to a year off his total sentence. Thereby, giving him 2 incentive to successfully complete the program. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I hereby certify that on the 6th day of April, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF 12 System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Jane McClellan 13 I hereby certify that on 6th day of April, 2006, I served the attached document by facsimile on 14 the following who are not registered participants of the CM/ECF System: Sharon Werner 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona s/ Lisa J. Settel LISA JENNIS SETTEL Assistant U.S. Attorney Respectfully submitted this 6th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:00-cr-00940-ROS

Document 77

Filed 04/06/2006

Page 3 of 3