Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cr-00054/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cr-00054-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
USA
Plaintiff
Ivan Young
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Ord. Re: Judgment

No. CR-05-0054 MAG 1

BARRY J. PORTMAN

Federal Public Defender

ELIZABETH M. FALK

Assistant Federal Public Defender

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7700

Counsel for Defendant YOUNG

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

IVAN YOUNG,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-05-0054 MAG

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED

ORDER FOR INTERPRETATION OF

JUDGMENT AND COMMITMENT

ORDER

Court: The Honorable James Larson

The parties hereby stipulate and respectfully requests the Court’s order as to the parties’

understanding as to this Court’s Judgment and Commitment Order, which the parties believe is the

Court’s intention with respect to the order. If the Court has a different interpretation of the Judgment

and Commitment, the parties respectfully request a further hearing on the matter:

BACKGROUND

1. On Friday, September 1, 2006, the parties met for sentencing. At that time, the Court

adopted the parties joint recommendation on the plea agreement, and sentenced Mr.

Young to 24 months of probation, with conditions set by the Court as reflected in the

attached Judgment and Commitment (see Exhibit A, attached);

Case 3:05-cr-00054-JL Document 23-1 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 1 of 4

XXXXXXX

Case 3:05-cr-00054-JL Document 25 Filed 09/19/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Ord. Re: Judgment

No. CR-05-0054 MAG 2

2. At that time, this Court directed Mr. Young to complete a special condition of testing

and treatment for drug and/or alcohol abuse, as directed by the probation officer, until

such time as the defendant is released from treatment by the probation officer.

3. On Friday, September 15, 2006, U.S. Probation Officer John Storm called AFPD Falk

and informed her that based on the Court’s order, he believed it was mandatory that Mr.

Young attend residential drug treatment and/or a full outpatient drug treatment program,

and that according to federal law, his office could be administratively liable if he did

not place Mr. Young in a treatment program;

4. At that time, AFPD Falk explained to Mr. Storm that her interpretation of that condition

was that this Court left it up to the judgment of the Probation Officer whether or not

drug treatment would be necessary at any stage of Mr. Young’s probation term. Ms.

Falk explained to USPO Storm that Mr. Young had already successfully completed a

residential program with Sonoma County between July 15, 2005 through August 17,

2005, and a nine month outpatient program following this date. After successful

completion of the outpatient program, he was discharged. At this point, Mr. Young

continues to attend 12-step meetings, continued to drug test through May, 2006, and

Ms. Falk explained that she believed that the Court wanted the Probation Department to

continue to drug test Mr. Young and monitor his drug-free lifestyle, but that this Court

did not mandate an additional drug treatment program at this time since Mr. Young is

working, complying with the terms of his state probation, has already completed a ten

month treatment program with the State court (see Exhibit B, attached) and has

remained drug free (with the exception of medical marijuana) for over a year;

5. USPO Storm said that he understood all Ms. Falk said, but until he heard it from the

Court, he was required to put Mr. Young in an additional drug treatment program,

which involves a full additional year of active treatment;

6. Ms. Falk called Mr. Owens, AUSA on Mr. Young’s case, to determine Mr. Owens’

Case 3:05-cr-00054-JL Document 23-1 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 2 of 4 Case 3:05-cr-00054-JL Document 25 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Ord. Re: Judgment

No. CR-05-0054 MAG 3

position on the Judgment and Commitment. At that time, Mr. Owens confirmed that

his intention with respect to the Plea Agreement was that Mr. Young had already

completed a treatment program, and the government was only concerned that Mr.

Young remain drug-free. He concurred with Ms. Falk that he interpreted the Court’s

order and requiring testing and Mr. Young’s continued participation in 12-step

meetings, but further drug treatment, inpatient or outpatient, should be left to the

discretion of the Probation Officer if Mr. Young relapses or otherwise seems to be

having problems with drugs or alcohol.

7. Mr. Storm now requests this Court’s order regarding the parties interpretation of the

Judgment and Commitment;

8. Specifically, the parties request this Court to order the following interpretation of the

Judgment and Commitment Order:

1. Mr. Young is to refrain from use of all drugs, including medical marijuana;

2. Mr. Young is to participate in a program of drug testing, as directed by

Probation;

3. Mr. Young is to continue to attend 12-step meetings;

4. The Probation Office is required to continue to assess Mr. Young’s compliance

with a drug-free lifestyle, and to arrange for outpatient treatment if Mr. Young

relapses or otherwise is out of compliance with his Court-ordered conditions;

5. The Judgment and Commitment Order does not require the Probation Office to

place Mr. Young in an outpatient drug treatment program at this time, provided

that Mr. Young continues to drug test, attend 12 step meetings, and continues to

cooperate fully with the Probation Department and maintains a drug-free

lifestyle.

//

//

Case 3:05-cr-00054-JL Document 23-1 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 3 of 4 Case 3:05-cr-00054-JL Document 25 Filed 09/19/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Ord. Re: Judgment

No. CR-05-0054 MAG 4

DATED: 8/18/2006 ______________/S/____________________

ELIZABETH M. FALK

Assistant Federal Public Defender

DATED: 8/18/2006 _______________/S/___________________

DEREK OWENS

Assistant United States Attorney

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a

“conformed” signature (/S/) within this e-filed document.

GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, it is hereby ORDERED that the aforementioned stipulation reflects

this Court’s order with respect to the Judgment and Commitment on Ivan Young.

____________________________________

THE HONORABLE JAMES LARSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cr-00054-JL Document 23-1 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 4 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Larson

September 19, 2006

Case 3:05-cr-00054-JL Document 25 Filed 09/19/06 Page 4 of 4