U.S. v. ONGE

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHELLE LAVA ST. ONGE, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle

Date published: Feb 9, 2006

Case No. CR03-0094-MJP-JPD (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. CR03-0094-MJP-JPD.

February 9, 2006

SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

JAMES DONOHUE, Magistrate Judge

An initial hearing on a petition for violation of supervised release was held before the undersigned Magistrate Judge on February 9, 2006. The United States was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Carl Blackstone, and the defendant by Ms. Paula Deutsch. The proceedings were recorded on cassette tape.

The defendant had been charged and convicted of conspiracy to possess stolen mail and production of false identification documents without lawful authority in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. On or about July 18, 2003, defendant was sentenced by the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman to thirteen (13) days in prison, followed by three (3) years of supervised release.

The conditions of supervised release included the requirement that the defendant comply with all local, state, and federal laws, and with the standard conditions. Special conditions imposed were substance-abuse and mental-health treatment, mandatory drug testing, abstinence from alcohol, search and seizure consent, no firearms or destructive devices, 180-day CSC placement, computer inspection, disclosure of all computer equipment and software, no new credit, prohibition from possessing identification in any other name, financial disclosure, and restitution.

In a Report on Offender Under Supervision dated January 12, 2006, U.S. Probation Officer Michael J. Larson asserted the following violation by defendant of the conditions of her supervised release:

(1) Using methamphetamine on or before December 3, 2005, in violation of standard condition No. 7.

The defendant has admitted to the violation, and and waived any rights to an evidentiary hearing as to whether it occurred.

I therefore recommend that the Court find the defendant to have violated the terms and conditions of her supervised release as to violation No. 1, and that the Court conduct a hearing limited to disposition. A disposition hearing on violation No. 1 will be set before the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman at a time to be determined.

Pending a final determination by the Court, the defendant has been released, subject to continued supervision.