The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill
REPORT OF OFFENDER NON-COMPLIANCE
United States District Judge Fresno, California Original Sentence Date: 12/14/2007 Original Offense: Counts 1-3: 18 USC 287 and 2 - False Claims and Aiding and Abetting (CLASS D FELONIES)
Original Sentence: 15 months custody Bureau of Prisons; 36 months term of Supervised Release; $7,600 restitution; $300 special assessment; Mandatory drug testing.
Special Conditions: Warrantless search; Financial disclosure; No new debt/credit; Not dissipate assets; Substance abuse testing and treatment; Co-payment for treatment and testing services.
Type of Supervision: Supervised Release Supervision Commenced: 01/21/2009 Assistant U.S. Attorney: Stanley A. Boone Telephone: (559) 497-4000 Defense Attorney: David A. Torres (appointed) Telephone: (661) 326-0857 Other Court Action: None
The purpose of this report is to advise the Court of an alleged violation of the terms of supervision. The probation officer has developed a plan to dispose of the alleged non-compliance with action less than revocation, and the Court is requested to approve the plan to address the non-compliance.
1. MISSED TESTING APPOINTMENT(S)
Details of alleged non-compliance: Pursuant to a special condition of supervision, the releasee began participation in a drug testing program on March 1, 2009. The releasee has been required to submit two drug tests per month, but he failed to show for testing on May 2 and 11, 2009.
United States Probation Officer Plan/Justification: When confronted, the releasee readily admitted he did not show up for testing on the above indicated dates. The releasee stated he missed the test scheduled for May 2, 2009, because he did not know he had to call the drug testing program on Saturdays. Regarding the test he missed on May 11, 2009, the releasee stated he did not report for testing because he did not have personal transportation, and did not want to take his infant child on the bus.
Considering the releasee has been admonished and advised that his drug testing requirements have been extended as a result of his non-compliance, it is recommended the Court take no additional formal action.
Should the releasee continue to find himself at variance from drug testing requirements or Court orders, the probation officer will seek Court intervention.
R. WALTERS Senior United States ...