United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER
ALLOWING PROBATION TO AMEND DEFENDANT'S PRESENTENCE
INVESTIGATION REPORT TO REFLECT SUBSTANCE ABUSE
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)
PSIR, filed with the Court on January 15, 2019, included all
of this information:
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 ...