Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cr-50101/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cr-50101-4/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 alleging violations of supervised release 

filed on January 28, 2016. 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 this hearing on the Petition. (Doc. 70.) 

I. Procedural Background 

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

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

Report, Paragraph 4.) On July 16, 2002, the District Court of New Mexico sentenced 

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 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 32
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 

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 September 

28, 2015, the Honorable Susan R. Bolton revoked Defendant’s supervised release, 

committed him to the Bureau of Prisons for time served, and placed him on supervised 

release for 47 months. (Docs. 52, 54.) 

 On September 29, 2015, Senior United States Probation Officer Josephine Begay 

met with Defendant and reviewed Defendant’s conditions of supervised release. (Ex. 5.) 

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. 

 On January 28, 2016, a Petition to Revoke Supervised Release was filed alleging 

two violations: 

Special Condition #1 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.” 

On December 15, 2015, Begay was unsuccessfully discharged from sex offender treatment with H&H Treatment Services. 

Grade C violation § 7B 1.1(a) (3). 

Special Condition #12 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 mental health treatment with the Tuba City Regional Health Care Center Mental Health Department. Grade C violation § 7B 1.1(a) (3). 

 (Doc. 58.) 

 On May 26, 2016, this Court conducted an evidentiary hearing. Defendant was 

present and assisted by counsel. The Government presented one witness (Officer Begay) 

and admitted five exhibits into evidence without objection by Defendant. (Exs. 1-5, 

attached.) Defendant testified. 

Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 32
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 

II. Findings of Fact

 The Court submits the following findings of fact. 

a. Senior Probation Officer Josephine Begay 

 On September 29, 2015, Officer Begay met with Defendant and reviewed his 

conditions of supervised release. Defendant signed a copy of the terms of his release. (Ex. 

5.) Defendant understood the terms of his release, including the terms related to sex 

offender treatment and mental health treatment. 

 On November 23, 2015, Defendant met with Thomas Hatathli for an individual, 

mental health counseling session. Defendant had been disruptive in group settings during 

his first term of supervised release, so individual counseling sessions were scheduled to 

begin this period of counseling. Defendant denied involvement in the underlying offense. 

Although initially calm, Defendant’s “tone turned to anger” in the form of “loud voice, 

bulging eyes, and pointing his finger” at Mr. Hatathli. (Ex. 1.) Defendant was 

discharged from treatment due to the “anger outburst” until “he is assessed by a 

psychiatrist for proper (diagnosis) and medication.” (Id.) 

 On December 7, 2015, Defendant met with Dr. James Decker of Tuba City 

Regional Health Care. (Ex. 2.) Dr. Decker completed a nine-page summary of his 

examination of Defendant. (Id.) Defendant told Dr. Decker he wanted assistance with 

mild depression and wanted to prove he was not “crazy.” (Id.) Defendant denied he was 

the person who committed the underlying offense. Defendant stated he wanted to become 

a minister to help others. Dr. Decker noted that Defendant “was pleasant, but distant and 

at times evasive, but overall cooperative with exam and polite except when he was 

directly contradicted which resulted in irritability.” (Ex. 2 at 6.) Dr. Decker noted that 

Defendant blamed his offense on another individual and “is declining to engage in 

outpatient care at this time,” which was “indicative of poor insight with a history 

indicative of poor impulse control and judgement.” (Id. at 8.) Dr. Decker’s DSM-5 

diagnosis was “Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome by history” with no future goals “as 

patient declining further care.” (Id.) 

Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 32
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 

 On December 23, 2015, Dr. Blanche Ridgley, of Health and Human ServicesKayenta Mental Health Department, contacted Defendant to reschedule a December 24 

appointment. Defendant was unwilling to reschedule the appointment. A supervisor 

contacted Defendant to further attempt to reschedule the appointment for December 31. 

Defendant told the supervisor that Health and Human Services was not open on 

December 31, and accused her of taking “psychotropic medication.” (Ex. 3.) 

 On December 8, 2015, Defendant was present at H & H Treatment for a meeting 

with a therapist. Defendant denied involvement in the underlying offense and became 

“angry and resistant to treatment.” (Ex. 4.) Defendant was suspended from Sex Offender 

Treatment with H & H Treatment because he was “treatment resistant.” (Id.) Therapist 

Jeffrey Cockayne recommended treatment resume after “medication and mood 

stabilization have occurred with Mr. Begay.” (Id.) 

 On December 15, 2015, Defendant was discharged from H & H Treatment 

Programs when he became verbally abusive with Therapist Cockayne regarding the 

rescheduling of his appointment. 

 Officer Begay testified that Defendant complied with filing monthly reports and 

his obligation not to consume alcohol or illegal controlled substances. 

b. Arnold James Begay 

 Defendant testified and acknowledged he met with Officer Begay. Regarding one 

incident where he had to reschedule. Defendant believed he complied with mental health 

and sex offender treatment requirements. When asked by counsel if he became a “tad 

upset” with counselors, Defendant testified it happened when his counselors did not listen 

to him. Regarding mental health treatment, Defendant said that doctors could not force 

him to take medication. Defendant said that he did not take medication because his prior 

doctors at Butner told him he did not need to take medication. 

 During cross-examination, Defendant denied committing the underlying offense. 

Defendant agreed he pleaded guilty to the offense. Defendant denied getting angry with 

counselors. Defendant admitted he had an outburst with counselors when he was asked to 

Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 4 of 32
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 

reschedule his December 23, 2015 appointment. Defendant stated that he had an 

“argument” with Therapist Cockayne on December 15, 2015 because Cockayne was late. 

Defendant said he called the Navajo Police Department because Therapist Cockayne was 

threatening him with (psychiatric) medication. 

 The Court asked Defendant if he agreed he became angry with his counselors. 

Regarding November 23, 2015, Defendant denied being angry but agreed he had “harsh 

words . . . like when you talk to your kids” because Mr. Hatathli was not doing his job. 

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. 58.) But the government is required to prove that 

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

release 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. 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 is unlikely to acknowledge guilt in this case. At a minimum, Defendant was 

Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 5 of 32
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 

capable of stopping his disruption of his treatment programs. Defendant was terminated 

from both mental health and sex offender treatment programs because he expressed anger 

at his treatment providers. Defendant was inflexible regarding rescheduling his 

appointments, accused one staff member of taking “psychotropic medications,” and 

called the Navajo police because of Therapist Cockayne’s alleged conduct. This Court is 

mindful of Defendant’s serious mental health issues, but the record demonstrates that 

Defendant’s conduct listed above was voluntary. 

 Defendant failed to participate in sex offender treatment because he would not 

acknowledge his conduct in the underlying offense. On December 8, 2015, Defendant 

became “angry and resistant to treatment” with Therapist Cockayne. (Ex. 4.) On 

December 15, 2015, Defendant was discharged from H & H Treatment Programs when 

he became verbally abusive with Therapist Cockayne regarding the rescheduling of his 

appointment. 

 Defendant failed to participate in mental health counseling. Defendant had an 

anger outburst with Thomas Hatathli on November 23, 2015. On December 7, 2015, 

Defendant met with Dr. Decker and told him Defendant declined “to engage in outpatient 

care.” (Ex. 2 at 8.) 

 The Court is mindful of Defendant’s serious mental health issues, but Defendant is 

unwilling to participate in treatment directed by others. Defendant remains resolute that 

he is not guilty of the underlying offense and he is unwilling to discuss his conduct 

related to this case. Defendant is disruptive with staff members and becomes angry with 

his counselors. Defendant is capable of complying with many parts of supervised release, 

but his participation in mental health and sex offender treatment is unsuccessful. 

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 

Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 6 of 32
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 

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 June 24, 2016, 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 

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

its preparation of the Disposition Report. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 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 31st day of May, 2016. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge

 

Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 7 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 8 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 9 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 10 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 11 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 12 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 13 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 14 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 15 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 16 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 17 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 18 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 19 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 20 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 21 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 22 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 23 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 24 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 25 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 26 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 27 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 28 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 29 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 30 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 31 of 32
Case 2:14-cr-50101-SRB Document 75 Filed 06/01/16 Page 32 of 32