Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Ward

United States District Court, D. Arizona

February 9, 2017

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Samuel Ward, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Honorable John Z. Boyle United States Magistrate Judge

         TO THE HONORABLE STEVEN P. LOGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

         Pending before the Court is a Superseding Petition, filed on February 3, 2017, alleging violations of supervised release. Pursuant to a Standing Order of Referral, dated July 2, 2014, the Honorable Steven P. Logan, United States District Judge, referred the Petition to Revoke Supervised Release in the above-numbered case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct a “hearing and preparation of findings and recommendations . . . and submit the necessary Report and Recommendation . . .” as authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3401(i) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). The parties consented in writing that this Magistrate Judge conduct this hearing on the Petition. (Doc. 27.)

         I. Procedural Background

         On July 19, 2016, Defendant was sentenced to 5 months of imprisonment and 31 months of supervised release for a violation of supervised release. (Doc. 16.) On February 3, 2017, a Superseding Petition was filed alleging three violations of Defendant's supervised release.

         On October 7, 2017, this Court conducted an evidentiary hearing. The Government proceeded on the three allegations in the Superseding Petition:

Allegation A: Special Condition #1 which states, “You shall participate as instructed by the probation officer in a program of substance abuse treatment which may include testing for substance abuse. You shall contribute to the cost of treatment in an amount to be determined by the probation officer.”
Ward failed to report to BSSW October 12, 2016, as directed. During a meeting in the probation office on October 11, 2016, Ward was directed, in writing, to report to Behavioral Systems Southwest (BSS) October 12, 2016, and to submit to substance abuse testing. Grade C violation §7Bl.l(a)(3).
Allegation B: Special Condition #4 which states, “At the discretion of the probation officer, you shall actively participate in a residential program as directed by the probation officer until discharged by the probation officer, but not to exceed 180 days without a Court review. Placement may include, singularly or in any combination, a residential re-entry center, a halfway house, inpatient drug treatment or a drug-free sober living environment as selected by the probation officer.”
Ward reported to BSSW, at approximately 8am, October 21, 2016, but left the facility before completing the intake process and failed to return. On October 20, 2016, Ward was accepted into Behavioral Systems Southwest (BSSW), a residential re-entry center located in Phoenix. His supervising officer contacted him by phone the same date and directed him to report to BSSW October 21, 2016, to complete the intake process. His whereabouts are unknown. Grade C violation §7Bl.l(a)(3).
Allegation C: Standard Condition #7 which states, “The defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol and shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or administer any controlled substance or any paraphernalia related to any controlled substance, except as prescribed by a physician.”
Ward abused methamphetamine October 21, 2016. Ward submitted to substance abuse testing October 21, 2016, and tested positive for methamphetamine. Grade C violation §7B 1.1 (a)(3).

(Doc. 26 at 1-2.)

         Defendant was present and assisted by counsel. The Government called Senior Probation Officer Kimberly Peterson and admitted Exhibit 1 into evidence ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.