Opinion ID: 605413
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the Petition for Revocation.

Text: 13 In United States v. Lee, 957 F.2d 770, 771-72 n. 2 (10th Cir.1992), we noted that a defendant was not charged with possession of [a controlled substance], but merely with the breach of a condition of his supervised release. We then stated that no issue was presented to the district court, nor is any before us, concerning ... whether § 3583(g) [providing for revocation of supervised release and imposition of mandatory prison sentence] is applicable. Keith relies on the foregoing statements to argue that because the government did not obtain a formal criminal charge against her for possession of a controlled substance prior to the revocation hearing, the government could not rely on § 3565(a) to revoke her probation and impose a prison sentence. 14 We disagree. The quoted statements merely noted that no § 3583(g) issue was raised in the case and hence our opinion would not decide it. Lee addressed whether policy statements are mandatory or advisory, relying in part on § 3583(e); it does not bar the application of § 3565(a) in a case like this. Instead, § 3565(a) applies whenever a defendant is found by the court to be in possession of a controlled substance. 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, while a petition for revocation of probation must satisfy the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(a)(2)(A)-(B),  § 3565(a) does not require that a defendant be formally charged or convicted of drug possession for the conduct to be considered in probation revocation or resentencing. United States v. Gordon, 961 F.2d 426, 429 (3d Cir.1992). 15 Here, the government's probation revocation notice alleged that Keith had used and injected drugs, as indicated by several positive urinalysis tests and her own admissions, and that the government therefore would seek revocation of Keith's probation. R.Doc. 8 at 2. An allegation of drug use is tantamount to an allegation of drug possession. See United States v. Rockwell, 984 F.2d 1112, 1114 (10th Cir.1993) ([t]here can be no more intimate form of [drug] possession than [drug] use). Accordingly, we are satisfied that [f]rom [the government's] written petition, [defendant] should have anticipated that she would be questioned about her drug possession at the probation violation hearing and that Rule 32.1(a)(2)(A)-(B) was thus satisfied. United States v. Gordon, 961 F.2d at 429. 16