Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Lawrence

January 25, 2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THOMAS R. LAWRENCE, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Senior Judge Daniel B. Sparr

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Supplement the Pre-Sentence Report [Doc. #397 ]. The Court has reviewed the motion and is fully advised in the premises.

Defendant has requested that the Court supplement his Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) with a recommendation that Defendant participate in the Bureau of Prison's Residential Drug Abuse Program and be awarded the customary incentives if he successfully completes the program. The basis for this request is his position that his criminal history category at sentencing was a result of prior 'substance abuse' convictions, as discussed by the Court during the sentencing hearing.

There are several problems with Defendant's request. The first is that the Court cannot supplement a PSR. Those reports are, as Defendant knows, produced by the Probation Department. Judges do not tell the Probation Department what to put in their PSRs.

Furthermore, the Court has no reason to believe that Defendant should participate in a Residential Drug Abuse Program. While the Court made reference to one or more DUI convictions, the only reference to drugs in the transcript of the sentencing hearing is a single statement that there was an 'indication in the Defendant's past history that there has been a potential for a drug problem.' Obviously a past potential for a problem is quite different from the crushing addiction that is seen in some defendants. Consequently, the Court does not believe that it would be prudent or efficient to recommend the allocation of what is surely a valuable resource to an individual who does not need it.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Supplement the Pre-Sentence Report is Denied.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 25th day of January, 2006.

Daniel B. Sparr Senior United States District Judge

20060125

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.