USA v. Lujan

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	) 	CRIMINAL CASE NO. 18-00013
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
vs. 	) 	CONCERNING VIOLATIONS OF
) 	SUPERVISED RELEASE CONDITIONS
VINCENT Q. LUJAN, 	) 	IN A FELONY CASE
)
Defendant. 	)
____________________________________)
Pending before the court are a petition and supporting declaration (together, the “Violation
Petition) filed on October 29, 2025, a Supplemental Declaration filed on November 6, 2025, and
a Second Supplemental Declaration filed on February 23, 2026. See ECF Nos. 135, 141 and 146.
These filings allege that the Defendant violated his supervised release conditions as follows:
1. 	failed to provide a urine specimen for testing on September 24 and 30, 2025, and
October 22 and 30, 2025; and
2. 	admitted to the use of “ice” on September 23 and 30, 2025, and October 21 and 28, 2025;
and
3. 	failed to appear for substance abuse assessments on November 5 and 10, 2025.
On January 23, 2026, the Defendant admitted to the allegations 1 and 2 above. See Mins.,
ECF No. 143. On February 24, 2026, the Defendant entered admissions allegation 3 above. See
Mins., ECF No. 147. 	Having heard from the parties, the court now issues this Report and
Recommendation as to an appropriate disposition for the supervised release violations.
BACKGROUND
A. 	Conviction and Sentence
On June 11, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to 78 months’ and five years of supervised
Case 1:18-cr-00013 Document 148 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States v. Vincent Q. Lujan, Criminal Case No. 18-00013
Report & Recommendation Concerning Violations of Supervised Release Conditions in a Felony Case 	page 2 of 7
release for Conspiracy to Distribute 50 or More Grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. See
J., ECF No. 38. 	Among various conditions of supervised release imposed, the Defendant was
ordered to refrain from the unlawful use of a controlled substance, participate in a substance abuse
treatment program which may include up to eight tests per month, and perform 50 hours of
community service in lieu of a fine.1 Id. at 3 and 5.
The Defendant served his sentence and commenced supervised release on July 21, 2022.
B. 	Post-Conviction Conduct
On April 10, 2023, the probation officer filed an Informational Report, see ECF No. 84,
alleging that the Defendant tested presumptive positive for methamphetamine during a drug test at
the Lighthouse Recovery Center (“LRC”). 	The sample was sent for lab analysis because the
Defendant denied use of illegal drugs. On April 5, 2023, the Defendant reported to the probation
office for a noncompliance meeting, at which time he admitted to the use of “ice” from March 29-31,
2023, and on April 4, 2023. The Defendant claimed he relapsed because of “personal stressors.”
On May 10, 2023, the probation officer filed a second Informational Report, see ECF No. 90,
alleging that the Defendant failed to participate in a substance abuse treatment program. According
to the probation officer, the Defendant was not responding to calls from LRC for treatment. The last
attempt to reach him was on May 3, 2023, but the Defendant never called LRC back.
On August 31, 2023, the probation officer filed a violation petition and two supplemental
declarations thereafter. See ECF Nos. 94, 96 and 98. As a result, on May 9, 2024, the Chief Judge
revoked the Defendant’s supervised release term and sentenced him to two weeks imprisonment,
followed by 48 months of supervised release. See Revocation J., ECF No. 109. The revocation was
based on three positive sweat patches, admissions to the use of “meth” and “ice,” failure to provide
valid urine samples for testing, failure to participate in substance abuse counseling, and failure to
report for drug testing. Id. and R. & R., ECF No. 104.
On June 26, 2025, the Chief Judge revoked the Defendant’s supervised release term for a
1 The court ordered that this requirement would be suspended if the Defendant was gainfully
employed full-time. Id. at 5.
Case 1:18-cr-00013 Document 148 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States v. Vincent Q. Lujan, Criminal Case No. 18-00013
Report & Recommendation Concerning Violations of Supervised Release Conditions in a Felony Case 	page 3 of 7
second time. The court sentenced the Defendant to three months’ imprisonment, with credit for time
served, and 45 months of supervised release for failing to report for drug tests, testing positive for
methamphetamine on sweat patches and admitting to the use of “meth,” and failing to comply with
substance abuse treatment requirements. See Second Revocation J., ECF No. 132.
The Defendant’s current term of supervised release commenced on August 6, 2025.
CURRENT VIOLATIONS
A. 	Filing of Violation Petition
On October 29, 2025, the probation officer filed the instant Violation Petition, see ECF
No. 135, alleging that the Defendant committed the violations as noted below.
DATE 	ALLEGATION
September 24, 2025 Defendant reported to LRC for a drug test but was unable to provide a
urine sample. 	He signed an admission form that he used “ice” on
September 23, 2025.
September 20, 2025 Defendant did not provide a urine sample when he reported to LRC for
drug testing and subsequently signed an admission form that he used “ice”
that same day.
October 22, 2025 Defendant reported to LRC for a drug test but could not provide a urine
sample. He signed an admission form that he used “ice” on October 21,
2025.
The probation officer requested that a summons issue for the Defendant to answer to the
alleged violations.
On October 30, 2025, the court issued an order granting the request for a summons and
setting a hearing for November 4, 2025, to answer to the allegations. See Order, ECF No. 135.
B. 	Initial Appearance
On November 4, 2025, the Defendant appeared before the court as summoned, and the
Federal Public Defender was appointed to represent him. See Mins., ECF No. 139. The probation
officer stated that the Defendant reported to the probation office on October 30, 2025, for drug
testing and admitted to drug use on October 28, 2025. She further stated that the Defendant has an
appointment for an assessment with Guam Behavioral Health and Wellness Center (“GBHWC”) on
November 5, 2025, in an attempt to get into the detox program. The court continued the matter to
November 6, 2025, and ordered the Defendant to return then unless he was in the detox program,
Case 1:18-cr-00013 Document 148 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States v. Vincent Q. Lujan, Criminal Case No. 18-00013
Report & Recommendation Concerning Violations of Supervised Release Conditions in a Felony Case 	page 4 of 7
at which point the hearing would be continued for two weeks.
C. 	Filing of Supplemental Declaration
On November 6, 2025, the probation officer filed a Supplemental Declaration, see ECF
No. 141, to memorialize what had been reported at the November 4th hearing regarding the
Defendant failing to provide a urine sample for drug testing on October 30, 2025, and his subsequent
admission to using “ice” on October 28, 2025. The probation officer also noted that the Defendant
contacted her on November 5, 2025, to report that he did not attend his appointment at GBHWC
because he overslept and had no transportation, but he rescheduled the appointment for
November 10, 2025.
D. 	Issuance of Arrest Warrant and Detention
On November 6, 2025 the case came before the court, but the Defendant was not present.
See Mins., ECF No. 142. The court ordered that a warrant issue for the Defendant’s arrest.
On January 21, 2026, the Defendant was arrested. See ECF No. 144.
He appeared in court on January 23, 2026, and entered admissions to all the allegations. See
Mins., ECF No. 143. The probation officer noted that she failed to include a third allegation in the
worksheets regarding the Defendant missing a substance abuse assessment on November 5, 2025,
although the underlying facts were included in the Supplemental Declaration. 	The court then
instructed the probation officer to file an amended worksheet to include the missed assessment
appointment. The court ordered the Defendant to be detained pending arguments on disposition,
which was scheduled for February 24, 2026.
E. 	Filing of Second Amended Violation Worksheet and Second Supplemental Declaration
On January 28, 2026, the probation officer filed a Second Amended Violation Worksheet
which noted that the Defendant failed to appear for substance abuse assessments on November 5
and 10, 2026. See ECF No. 145.
On February 23, 2026, the probation officer filed a Second Supplemental Declaration to
explain the missed assessment on November 10, 2026, which was included in the Second Amended
Violation Worksheet. See ECF No. 146. The probation officer stated that after the Defendant’s last
court hearing, she contacted GBHWC to verify whether the Defendant attended his substance abuse
Case 1:18-cr-00013 Document 148 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States v. Vincent Q. Lujan, Criminal Case No. 18-00013
Report & Recommendation Concerning Violations of Supervised Release Conditions in a Felony Case 	page 5 of 7
assessment. 	The probation officer was informed that the Defendant did not appear for his
appointments on November 5 and 10, 2026.
F. 	Further Admissions
On February 24, 2026, the parties returned to court, and the Defendant admitted that he
missed the two substance abuse assessments. See Mins., ECF No. 147. Counsel and the probation
officer then presented their respective positions on an appropriate sanction of the violations. The
court took the matter under advisement and ordered the Defendant to remain detained pending the
final disposition hearing. 	Having reviewed the record herein and considered the parties’
recommendations, the court now issues this Report and Recommendation for the Chief Judge’s
consideration.
LEGAL STANDARD
The standard of proof for revocation of supervised release is governed by statute. A district
court may revoke a term of supervised release only if it “finds by a preponderance of the evidence
that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). See also
United States v. Lomayaoma, 86 F.3d 142, 147 (9th Cir. 1996) (“for purposes of a supervised release
revocation hearing, the district court need only conclude that a preponderance of the evidence
supports” revocation). Revocation is mandatory if a defendant fails to comply with required drug
testing or tests positive more than three times over the course of one year. 	See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(g)(3) and (4).
PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE POSITIONS AND FACTORS CONSIDERED
The Second Amended Violation Worksheet notes that the allegations are Grade C violations,
with a guidelines range of 3-9 months of imprisonment, based on the Defendant’s criminal history
category of I, followed by 47-53 months of supervised release. 	See Second Am. Violation
Worksheet at ¶¶ 7-10 and 13, ECF No. 145. This is the Defendant’s third revocation proceeding.
His underlying conviction was for a Class A felony, so the maximum revocation sentence that can
be imposed is five years. His first revocation sentence was two weeks’ imprisonment and the second
revocation was for three months.
Because this was the Defendant’s third revocation and consistent with the policy of imposing
Case 1:18-cr-00013 Document 148 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States v. Vincent Q. Lujan, Criminal Case No. 18-00013
Report & Recommendation Concerning Violations of Supervised Release Conditions in a Felony Case 	page 6 of 7
graduated sanctions, the probation officer recommended a mid-range sentence of six months’
imprisonment, followed by 50 months of supervised release. 	Counsel for the United States
concurred in this recommendation.
Defense counsel urged the court to impose a three-month sanction instead because the
violations were based solely on his continuing addiction to methamphetamine. Ms. Kottke asserted
that any longer sentence would be more punitive, particularly because the Bureau of Prisons would
likely keep the Defendant incarcerated on Guam, and the conditions at the Guam Department of
Corrections fall far below acceptable standards. Defense counsel argued that a lengthy incarceration
period does not serve the purpose of rehabilitation, particularly here where the Defendant’s goal was
to get back into treatment to address his addiction. Counsel further noted that the Defendant’s sister
was in the courtroom and asserted that family support can improve treatment outcomes.
The court agrees with defense counsel that a longer incarceration period will not rehabilitate
the Defendant, particularly because he will not have any access to drug treatment programs while
detained at the Guam Department of Corrections. 	The Defendant needs more substance abuse
treatment, not less. Additionally, the instant violations are all drug related and do not involve the
commission of new criminal offenses. 	The minimum sentence of three months is reasonable,
reflects the seriousness of the violations and will provide the Defendant with the opportunity to re-
engage with treatment to address his addiction.
RECOMMENDATION BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Having considered the above factors, the undersigned recommends the District Judge accept
the Defendant’s admissions to the violations noted above, revoke the Defendant’s supervised release
term and impose a sentence of three months, with credit for time served,2 followed by 53 months of
supervised release.
///
///
///
2 The Defendant has been detained since his arrest to January 21, 2026. See ECF No.
Case 1:18-cr-00013 Document 148 Filed 02/25/26 Page 6 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States v. Vincent Q. Lujan, Criminal Case No. 18-00013
Report & Recommendation Concerning Violations of Supervised Release Conditions in a Felony Case 	page 7 of 7
A disposition hearing shall be held on March 12, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., unless otherwise
rescheduled by the District Judge.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
NOTICE
Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within
fourteen (14) days from the date of its service shall bar an aggrieved party
from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United
States District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
/s/ 0LFKDHO-%RUGDOOR
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated: Feb 25, 2026
Case 1:18-cr-00013 Document 148 Filed 02/25/26 Page 7 of 7