Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cr-50101/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cr-50101-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arnold James Begay
Defendant
USA
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Pending before the Court is a Petition to Revoke Supervised Release (Doc. 3) filed 

on September 9, 2014. Pursuant to a Standing Order of Referral, dated July 9, 2014, the 

Honorable Susan R. Bolton, 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 the hearing on the Petition.1

 

I. Procedural Background 

 On March 11, 2002, Defendant pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, in the 

 

1

 A transcript of this hearing was ordered on August 13, 2015. 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Arnold James Begay, 

Defendant. 

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CR-14-50101-PHX-SRB (JZB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 23
2 

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 

District of New Mexico, to Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Child. (Presentence Report 

(PSR) ¶ 4.) On July 16, 2002, the District Court of New Mexico sentenced Defendant to 

180 months of imprisonment, followed by 60 months of supervised release. (Doc. 1-2.) 

Defendant’s supervised release commenced on May 2, 2014. On May 5, 2014, Senior 

United States Probation Officer Josephine Begay met with Defendant and reviewed 

Defendant’s conditions of supervised release. Defendant was referred to H & H 

Treatment Services for sex offender treatment, and was referred to Tuba City Regional 

Health Care Center for mental health treatment. Transfer of jurisdiction from New 

Mexico to Arizona was approved by the Honorable Susan R. Bolton on May 19, 2015. 

On July 23, 2014, Defendant met with Officer Begay to accept a Modification of 

Supervised Release Conditions. Defendant signed and dated his acknowledgement of the 

modifications. (Exh. 2.) 

 On September 9, 2014, a Petition to Revoke Supervised Release was filed alleging 

two violations: 

A. Special Condition #13 which states, “You shall attend and participate in a 

sex offender treatment program and sex offense specific evaluations as 

approved by the probation officer. You shall abide by the policies and 

procedures of all the treatment and evaluation providers. You shall 

contribute to the cost of such treatment and assessment not to exceed an 

amount determined to be reasonable by the probation officer based upon 

ability to pay.” 

 Begay was unsuccessfully discharged from sex offender treatment on 

September 2, 2014. Grade C violation § 7B 1.1(a) (3). 

B. Special Condition #24 which states, You shall participate in a mental 

health program as directed by the probation officer which may include 

taking prescribed medication. You shall contribute to the cost of treatment 

in an amount to be determined by the probation officer. 

 Begay was unsuccessfully discharged from Indian Health Services mental 

health treatment program. Grade C violation § 7B 1.1(a) (3). 

Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 23
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 

 (Doc. 3.)2

 Defendant was arrested on September 12, 2014. (Doc. 6.) Competency 

proceedings delayed this matter from September 18, 2014 (Doc. 7) to June 9, 2015 (Doc. 

26). 

 On August 11, 2015, this Court conducted an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 42.) 

Defendant was present and assisted by counsel. The Government presented one witness 

(Officer Begay) and admitted two exhibits into evidence without objection by 

Defendant—(1) a Discharge Summary with attachments, and (2) a Waiver and Order 

regarding Modification of Supervised Release Conditions.3

 (Exhs. 1, 2.) Defendant 

testified. 

II. Findings of Fact 

 The Court submits the following findings of fact, which are largely undisputed by 

the parties. 

a. Senior Probation Officer Josephine Begay 

 On May 5, 2014, Officer Begay met with Defendant to review his conditions of 

supervised release. Defendant told Officer Begay that spirits told him Officer Begay 

should be his wife. Officer Begay told Defendant that his comments were inappropriate. 

Defendant agreed to modify his behavior and he stated he was willing to attend mental 

health treatment. 

 On July 29, 2015, Defendant sent several text messages to Heather Young, his 

primary treatment therapist at H & H Treatment Programs. (Exh. 1.) The texts were sent 

from Defendant’s phone (ending in “9801”) and Defendant acknowledged to Officer 

 

2

 The Special Conditions listed in the Petition are copied from the July 23, 2014, Modification of Supervised Release Conditions. (Exh. 2.) They are incorrectly numbered in the Petition. “Special Condition #13” is Condition 1, and “Special Condition #24” is Condition 12. The Court addressed this issue with the parties, and asked Defendant if he 

had sufficient notice of the allegations. The Court offered to continue the hearing if Defendant requested additional time to prepare. Defendant’s counsel, to his credit, 

acknowledged that he and his client were aware of the allegations and did not need additional time to prepare. 

3

 These Exhibits are attached to this Report and Recommendation. 

Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 3 of 23
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 

27 

28 

Begay that he sent the texts. Four pages of texts from Defendant’s phone are contained 

on the left side of the document. One text from therapist Young is contained on the right 

side of the first page of the document. Officer Begay testified that Defendant told 

therapist Young that he wanted to “be with” her and wanted her to be his wife. The text 

messages contained no threats. On August 5, 2014, Officer Begay spoke with Defendant 

regarding his inappropriate comments, and Defendant agreed to modify his behavior. 

 From May to August, 2014, Defendant attended sex offender treatment. 

Defendant caused substantial disruption in his therapy and group sessions because he 

refused to acknowledge he committed the crime in this case. Officer Begay testified that 

Defendant continually asserted throughout sex offender treatment that a different Arnold 

Begay committed the crime, and Defendant would not take responsibility for his prior 

conduct. Officer Begay testified that she reviewed a September 1, 2014 Discharge 

Summary from H & H Treatment Programs, which documented Defendant’s conduct. 

(See Exh. 1, Discharge Summary (“At this time this offender is deemed unamendable to 

treatment. Offender is very delusional in his goals and objectives in the treatment 

process. Mr. Begay has fixated obsessively on clearing the label ‘sex offender’ from his 

records and has continuously attempted to debate his ‘case’ in group treatment sessions in 

spite of having been advised and warned of the consequences.”).) 

 On August 29, 2014, Defendant sent several messages to H & H Clinical 

Supervisor, Beau Harvey. (Exh. 1, “Texts from Arnold Begay to Beau Harvey.”) Three 

texts to Supervisor Harvey threatened that the “Father” said Harvey would be “going to 

Hell and lake of fire.” (Id.) A text at 9:17 P.M. stated that “Bow now you c Bow u better 

not run your mouth to no one. You well get you xxx kick or kill. So better be careful 

Heather is my wife. –AJB-.” (Id.) At 9:33 P.M., a text stated “Bow, these people out 

there don’t like a rat. It’s the same in prison.” (Id.) 

 On September 1, 2014, Defendant was unsuccessfully discharged from sex 

offender treatment. Between August 26, 2014 and September 1, 2014, Defendant was 

discharged from mental health treatment because he continued to deny responsibility for 

Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 4 of 23
5 

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 

his offense and insisted a different Arnold Begay committed the offense. Despite his 

discharge, Defendant told staff members that he wished to continue with treatment in 

both programs. Defendant was not seen by a psychiatrist prior to his discharge. 

b. Arnold James Begay 

 Defendant testified and agreed that he voluntarily pleaded guilty to the crime of 

conviction in this case.4

 He agreed he is the Arnold Begay who pleaded guilty and was 

sentenced to imprisonment. He stated that he pleaded guilty to avoid a term of lifetime 

imprisonment. He asserted that a different Arnold Begay committed the offense in this 

case. 

 Defendant agreed that he had previously been convicted in New Mexico for sexual 

misconduct offenses that occurred in 1991. (See also, PSR ¶ 29.) Defendant testified that 

he wished to speak about this New Mexico offense during treatment, but Supervisor 

Harvey continued to request Defendant speak about his current case. Defendant testified 

that he was “frustrated” with Supervisor Harvey. He testified that Harvey would “snitch” 

on him to Senior Officer Begay. When asked why he threatened Supervisor Harvey, 

Defendant said it was his intent to make Supervisor Harvey more polite. 

 Defendant agreed that he understood his terms of supervised release. He agreed 

that he understood that he was required to participate in mental health and sex offender 

treatment. 

 The Court asked Defendant if he was contacted by Senior Officer Begay regarding 

inappropriate text messages to therapist Young. Defendant stated he had been told not to 

make contact with therapist Young. Defendant testified he agreed to stop making that 

contact, but he still wished to contact therapist Young to discuss his spiritual connection 

and revelation from God. When asked why he agreed to follow some requests 

(discontinuing contact with therapist Young) but did not follow others (discontinuing 

discussing his prior state conviction), Defendant said he was not guilty of the federal 

 

4

 Paragraph 17 of Defendant’s Presentence Report contains an admission by Defendant regarding the commission of the offense. 

Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 5 of 23
6 

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 

offense. 

III. Conclusions of Law

 “A district court may ‘revoke a term of supervised release, and require the person 

to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release . . . if the court . . . finds by 

a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised 

release.’” United States v. Vallejo, 69 F.3d 992, 994 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 

3583(e)(3)). 

 The Court is required to determine if Defendant failed to participate in sex 

offender treatment and mental health treatment. It is undisputed that Defendant was 

unsuccessfully discharged from his treatment programs, which is listed as the nature of 

noncompliance in the Petition. (Doc. 3.) But the government is required to prove that 

Defendant violated his term of supervised release. Defendant’s terms of supervised 

release in the Petition required him to participate in treatment programs. See United 

States v. Davis, 481 Fed. Appx. 339, 340 (9th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (finding that “the 

district court needed to decide whether Davis’s expulsion from New Frontiers constituted 

a violation of a condition of his supervised release” and that “the district court did not 

clearly err in finding that Davis was at least partially responsible” for his failure to 

complete residential drug treatment). 

 The Court finds that Defendant failed to participate as required. First, Defendant 

did not participate in his treatment programs because he refused to acknowledge his guilt 

in the current offense. Defendant testified to this fact and continued to contest his guilt in 

court. Defendant maintained this belief before and after competency proceedings. At a 

minimum, Defendant was capable of stopping his disruption of his treatment programs. 

Defendant also continued to insist that he discuss his New Mexico case despite numerous 

requests that he not do so. The record demonstrates Defendant was capable of modifying 

his behavior regarding inappropriate statements to Officer Begay and therapist Young. 

Defendant had the ability to modify his behavior when asked to stop discussing his New 

Mexico case. This Court is mindful of Defendant’s serious mental health issues, but the 

Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 6 of 23
7 

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 

record demonstrates that Defendant’s conduct listed above was voluntary. 

 Second, Defendant admitted that he threatened Supervisor Harvey. Defendant 

stated he did so because he was frustrated with Harvey and wanted Harvey to be more 

polite. The text messages of August 29, 2014 from Defendant to Supervisor Harvey 

include a threat of violence. (See Exh. 1 (“You well get you xxx kick or kill. So U better 

be careful Heather5

 is my wife.”).) Defendant also texted to Supervisor Harvey that he 

would be going to “Hell and lake of fire” and that “people out there don’t like rat.” (Id.) 

Threatening staff members with violence is a failure to participate in a treatment 

program. 

 The Court does not find that Defendant’s inappropriate statements to Officer 

Begay or therapist Young demonstrated a failure to participate in his treatment programs. 

Defendant acknowledged his conduct and agreed to modify his behavior. 

IV. Recommendation 

 Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and LRCrim 

57.6(d)(4), Rules of Practice for the District of Arizona, the undersigned Magistrate 

Judge RECOMMENDS that the Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District 

Judge, after an independent review of the record, find Defendant violated the terms of 

supervised released contained in Allegations A and B. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(b)(1), Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

IT IS ORDERED setting a final disposition hearing for September 14, 2015, at 

2:45 p.m. before the Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge, in 

Courtroom 502, Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, 

Phoenix, Arizona. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Probation Department shall prepare a 

 

5

 Therapist Heather Young. 

Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 7 of 23
8 

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 

Disposition Report and the Defendant shall cooperate with the Probation Department in 

its preparation of the Disposition Report. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have 14 days from the date of 

service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections 

with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rule 59(b)(2), Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the 

District Judge without further review. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the 

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation. See Rule 59, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

 Dated this 14th day of August, 2015. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge

 

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 8 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 9 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 10 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 11 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 12 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 13 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 14 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 15 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 16 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 17 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 18 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 19 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 20 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 21 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 22 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 46 Filed 08/14/15 Page 23 of 23