United States v. Blazejewicz

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING PROBATION TO AMEND DEFENDANT'S PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT TO REFLECT SUBSTANCE ABUSE ISSUES

          CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Piotr Blazejewicz's self-styled Motion for Post-Judgment Relief in Allowing Probation to Amend His Presentence Investigation Report to Reflect His Substance Abuse Issues (“the Motion for an Order”). (Doc. # 78.) For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Defendant's Motion for an Order.

         Defendant was charged by Information on December 12, 2017, with two counts: (1) conspiracy to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, and (2) knowingly conducting financial transactions involving interstate and foreign commerce, which transactions involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity (distribution of controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841), with the intent to promote the carrying on of the specified unlawful activity, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h) and 1956(a)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. # 28.) He pled guilty to both counts and the Court accepted his plea pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 on June 27, 2018. (Doc. ## 45, 46.)

         From September 1, 2017, until he was sentenced on January 25, 2019, Defendant was on supervised pretrial release, subject to conditions imposed by the Court. See (Doc. # 14.) These prohibited him from using any controlled substances and from using alcohol excessively. (Id. at 2.) Defendant acknowledged regular consumption of alcohol throughout his pretrial release supervision, but the supervising United States Probation Officer had no indication that Defendant's alcohol use was excessive or a problem. (Doc. # 81 at 1.)

         Over the course of the Probation Office's presentence investigation, the Probation Officer apprised Defendant that any information he provided during the presentence investigation process needed to be truthful and complete. See (id.) The Probation Officer also informed Defendant that any information garnered during the presentence investigation would be made available to the Court for sentencing considerations, to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) for classification and programming, and to the Probation Office for future supervision purposes. (Id.) The Probation Officer conducted a presentence investigation interview with Defendant by telephone in early July 2018. See (Doc. # 57 at 8, 10.) Defendant's spouse later verified the information Defendant had provided to the Probation Officer, and the Probation Officer gathered additional information from collateral resources. See (id. at 8.)

         As the Probation Officer recounted in the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSIR”), neither Defendant nor his wife reported any substance abuse concerns during the presentence investigation. (Id. at 10-11.) However, in December 2018, Defendant participated in a dual-diagnosis evaluation at a mental health center as a condition of his pretrial release, and he was diagnosed with Amphetamine Use Disorder. (Id. at 11.)

         As the Probation Officer later detailed:

[Defendant] admitted to the evaluator he had a history of Adderall abuse, but reported he had not used this drug since August 2017. He expressed no desire for treatment. However, as individual dual-diagnosis treatment was recommended, the Probation Office authorized this treatment and the defendant attended individual counseling sessions on several occasions prior to his sentencing hearing.

(Doc. # 81 at 2.)

         The PSIR, filed with the Court on January 15, 2019, included all of this information:

Substance Abuse

55. The defendant began consuming alcohol at age 21. His most recent reported use of alcohol occurred approximately one week prior to his presentence investigation interview on July 5, 2018. The defendant consumes alcohol minimally and “socially.” He estimates consuming one beer per sitting approximately once per week.

56. The defendant experimented with marijuana three times between ages 27 and 30. He tried cocaine once at age 32.

57. The defendant has no alcohol or substance abuse concerns. He has no substance ...