USA v. Breithaupt et al

Case 2:22-cr-00133-ACE ECF No. 1081 filed 03/26/24 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

Prob12C
Re: Preston, Mark A.
March 26, 2024
Page 2
and further adamantly denied that he had relapsed. Mr. Preston subsequently provided a
urinalysis sample for testing that reflected as presumptive positive for methamphetamine.
Mr. Preston signed a drug use denial form and the sample was forwarded to the lab for
verification.
On March 26, 2024, the laboratory test result was received specific to the client’s submitted
urinalysis sample and confirmed the sample was positive for methamphetamine.
3
Special Condition #4: You must abstain from the use of illegal controlled substances, and
must submit to urinalysis and sweat patch testing, as directed by the supervising officer, but
no more than 6 tests per month, in order to confirm continued abstinence from these
substances.
Supporting Evidence: Mr. Preston is alleged to have violated special condition number 4
by failing to attend random urinalysis testing with the contract provider on March 14, 2024.
Specifically, on March 15, 2024, the undersigned officer received notification from the
federal urinalysis testing contract provider that the client had failed to attend random
urinalysis testing with the provider on March 14, 2024, when his assigned color was called.
At 12:17 p.m., on the day in question, Mr. Preston was sent a text message directing him to
report to the U.S. Probation Office for testing, which Mr. Preston failed to abide by or
respond to.
On March 18, 2024, the undersigned officer both left a voice mail and sent a text message
to Mr. Preston directing him to report to the U.S. Probation Office for urinalysis testing. Mr.
Preston subsequently reported as directed, and indicated he had not received the undersigned
officer’s text message, previously sent to him on March 15, 2024. In addition, Mr. Preston
was adamant that he had attended urinalysis testing with the contract provider on March 14,
2024.
As a part of the meeting with Mr. Preston, the urinalysis testing provider was contacted by
the undersigned officer telephonically to address the inconsistency, during which the
provider explained their process for urinalysis testing, to include client and staff
requirements, such as the client signing in upon arrival and signing their name after
submitting a sample, and staff’s requirement to enter a case note after client testing. The
provider indicated that the client did not sign either log as required, and that staff case notes
described the client as having failed to report for testing on the day in question. The provider
again indicated that based on the information available, Mr. Preston did not report for
urinalysis testing on March 14, 2024, despite his argument to the contrary.
The U.S. Probation Office respectfully recommends the Court to incorporate the violation(s) contained in this petition
in future proceedings with the violation(s) previously reported to the Court, and that the Court issue a WARRANT.
Case 2:22-cr-00133-ACE ECF No. 1081 filed 03/26/24 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

Case 2:22-cr-00133-ACE ECF No. 1081 filed 03/26/24 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3