Opinion
CASE NO. CR03-0121-RSL.
February 23, 2007
SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
An initial hearing on supervised release revocation in this case was scheduled before me on February 23, 2007. The United States was represented by AUSA Lisca Borichewski and the defendant by Robert W. Goldsmith. The proceedings were digitally recorded.
Defendant had been sentenced on or about September 5, 2003 by the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik on a charge of Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances, and sentenced to 30 months custody, 5 years supervised release. (Dkt. 72, 77.)
The conditions of supervised release included the standard conditions plus the requirements that defendant not possess any firearm or destructive device, submit to mandatory drug testing, participate in a substance abuse program, abstain from alcohol, submit to search, and provide his probation officer with access to financial information. Supervision commenced on November 5, 2004.
On January 31, 2006, defendant's probation officer reported that defendant had violated the conditions of supervised release by failing to report for drug testing. Defendant was counseled and the frequency of drug testing was increased. (Dkt. 85.) No further action was taken at the time.
On May 15, 2006, defendant's probation officer reported that defendant had violated the conditions of supervised release by testing positive for cocaine and morphine. The defendant was reprimanded, referred for counseling, and the frequency of drug testing was increased. He was also referred to Moral Reconation Therapy. (Dkt. 86.) No further action was taken at the time.
On September 20, 2006, defendant's conditions of supervision were modified to require participation in a home confinement program with electronic monitoring for 90 days. (Dkt. 87.)
In an application dated January 28, 2007 (Dkt. 88), U.S. Probation Officer Monique D. Neal alleged the following violation of the conditions of supervised release:
1. Failing to comply with the home confinement program since November 21, 2006, in violation of the special condition requiring he participate in the home confinement program with electronic monitoring as directed by the probation officer.
Defendant was advised in full as to the charge and as to his constitutional rights.
Defendant admitted the alleged violation and waived any evidentiary hearing as to whether it occurred. (Dkt. 90).
I therefore recommend the Court find defendant violated his supervised release as alleged, and that the Court conduct a hearing limited to the issue of disposition. The next hearing will be set before Judge Lasnik.
Pending a final determination by the Court, defendant has been released on the conditions of supervision.