Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cr-00110/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cr-00110-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marnie Ann Burt
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

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

27

28

1

 TASC is the contract agency that conduct the random drug testing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

Marnie Ann Burt, 

Defendant. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 04-110-TUC-CKJ (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing on

the Government's Petition to Revoke Supervised Release filed on November 7, 2008. The

one count Petition asserts that Defendant failed to show for random urinalysis testing on

September 5, 8, 17, 26 and 30 and October 6, 14 and 24, 2008. An evidentiary hearing was

conducted on February 5, 2009. Two witnesses were presented by the Government, United

States Probation Officer Pamela Patterson and Treatment Assessment Screening Center

(“TASC”)1

 Site Administrator, Geary Baker. Defendant Burt was present and represented

by counsel. She testified in her own defense.

Officer Patterson

According to Officer Patterson, Defendant was placed in a halfway house pursuant

to a condition of her supervised release. Following her release from the halfway house,

Defendant was ordered to report for substance abuse testing as well as treatment if

recommended. On August 7, 2008, just before the Defendant was released from the halfway

Case 4:04-cr-00110-CKJ-JR Document 71 Filed 02/17/09 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

2

house, Officer Patterson directed her to report to TASC and sign up for drug testing. Then,

on August 27, 2008, during a home visit, Officer Patterson again advised the Defendant that

she needed to report to TASC and sign up for drug testing. 

After the Defendant missed her first scheduled drug test on September 5, 2008,

Officer Patterson brought it to her attention. Defendant Burt claimed that she was confused

as to the day she was supposed to drop; Defendant believed she had a “purple” color coded

drop day when in fact she had a “yellow.” In response, and in Defendant’s presence, Officer

Patterson called TASC and verified Defendant’s drop days. Defendant Burt continued to

miss her scheduled drops and on November 7, 2008, Officer Patterson filed the present

Petition.

Mr. Baker

Mr. Baker is the Site Administrator at TASC who has access to all the records.

According to Mr. Baker, when a person first come in to TASC, she is assigned a color under

a random color system generated by the Phoenix corporate office. Each of the possible

colors signifies a frequency of testing. Each person is asked if they would like a reminder

card with their color written on it. Each is also oriented, or in Defendant’s case re-oriented,

as to how the color system and call line works. Each is instructed to call the color line

Monday through Friday and when their color comes up, to report on that date for testing. 

TASC keeps a daily customer contact and sign-in list. Federal probationers are

always given receipts when they show up for testing. “No show reports” are generated when

the probationer fails to show and that report is sent to the assigned probation officer.

Based on TASC’s records, Defendant went in on September 3, 2008, and was

assigned the color “yellow,” which meant that she would be tested once a week. She declined

a reminder card. Although she had been working with TASC for sometime, Defendant was

still given the orientation. 

According to TASC ‘s log books, Defendant’s color came up for testing on September

5, 8, 17, 26 and 30 and October 6, 14 and 24, 2008. Receipts were not given to the

Case 4:04-cr-00110-CKJ-JR Document 71 Filed 02/17/09 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

3

Defendant on any of those dates. This meant that she did not show up to test on any of those

days. (See Government's Exhibit1.)

Defendant Burt

According to the Defendant, she went to TASC not on September 3 as testified to by

Mr. Baker, but on September 17. She does recall getting a reminder card (which she believes

she “has somewhere”) but it said “purple,” not “yellow.” She called the drop line everyday,

but “her color never came up.” She did not learn that her color was “yellow” until October

6, at which time she went to TASC and dropped. She insisted that she dropped on many of

the other days as well. When questioned about he receipts, Defendant testified that she

thought she had faxed them to her attorney but had them at home if the court wanted to see

them. She was given until 5:00 p.m. February 5, 2009 (the day of the hearing) to produce

them to her attorney. The receipts never materialized. 

Recommendation

Having considered the pleadings, testimony, and the arguments of counsel, the

Magistrate Judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant violated her

conditions of supervised release. United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 531 U.S. 999 (2000); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The Magistrate Judge recommends

that the District Court, after an independent review of the record, grant the Government's

Petition to Revoke Supervised Release and set the matter for disposition hearing.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections

are not timely filed they may be deemed waived. The parties are advised that any objections

filed are to be identified with the following case number: CR 04-110-TUC-CKJ.

DATED this 13th day of February, 2009.

Case 4:04-cr-00110-CKJ-JR Document 71 Filed 02/17/09 Page 3 of 3