You are eligible to request early termination from probation or supervised release under the following circumstances:

• Statutorily after you have completed at least one year of supervision, your attorney can petition the Court.  However in the District of Montana, you must have completed at least two-thirds (2/3) of your ordered term of supervision unless you have demonstrated extraordinary efforts.

If you have been convicted of a serious felony and/or have a history of violence, your case will not be considered for early termination.

The U.S. Probation Office is restricted from disclosing information to the public. However, most convictions are generally available in public records. These records are maintained by the U.S. District Court Clerk.

The District of Montana is comprised of 56 counties. You are allowed to travel freely within these counties, unless you are specifically restricted by the Court or your U.S. Probation Officer.  

Federal convictions cannot be expunged. However, you may apply for a Presidential Pardon. Any person convicted of a felony in Federal court is eligible to file a petition for a Presidential Pardon under the following circumstances, although some exceptions may apply:

• The individual is no longer serving the sentence and is not under parole, probation, or supervised release;
• Five years have passed since release from confinement or if confinement was not imposed, five years from the date of conviction; and
• A waiting period of seven years is required for more serious offenses, including violations of narcotic laws, income tax laws, perjury, violation of public trust involving dishonesty, violent crimes, gun control laws, fraud involving substantial sums of money, violations involving organized crime, and other crimes of a serious nature.

It is strongly recommended that you consult with an attorney to assist you with the process. Pardon applications may be obtained by making a written request to the Office of the Pardon Attorney, at the following address:

Office of the Pardon Attorney United States Department of Justice 1425 New York Ave NW, Suite 11000, Washington, DC 20530.

See our Office Locations.

Supervision in the federal system is:

• A core responsibility of U.S. probation and pretrial services officers, along with investigation.
• A way to monitor the activities and behavior of people released to the community by the federal courts or paroling authorities.
• An opportunity to help offenders reintegrate into the community following a period of incarceration.
• In the case of probation, a punishment that is less severe than imprisonment, but still holds people accountable for breaking the law.
• An alternative to jail or prison that costs less than incarceration and gives people charged with or convicted of federal crimes the opportunity to live with their families, hold jobs, and be productive members of society.

Read more about supervision.

An individual convicted of a felony offense is prohibited from possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), but is not prohibited from hunting consistent with state regulations.

Provided that they are not subject to probation/supervised release conditions prohibiting the possession of a dangerous weapon, felons may hunt with bows and/or black powder rifles if no risk is determined by your U.S. Probation Officer.  Felons subject to state supervision under the Montana Department of Corrections are specifically precluded from possessing bows and/or black powder rifles.

You may request a certified copy of a document by contacting the U.S. District Court clerk’s office.

The U.S. Probation Office is not authorized to release information regarding payments received and distributed by criminal defendants. Please contact the U.S. District Court Clerk for information if you believe you are owed court-ordered restitution.

Whether an entity seeking to conduct an audit or evaluation is permitted to do so is a matter that each vendor must resolve under the federal regulations discussed below.

I. The HIPAA Privacy Rule Section 165.512 of the HIPAA privacy rule sets forth “[u]ses and disclosures for which an authorization or opportunity to agree or object [by the patient] is not required.” 45 C.F.R. § 165.512. Among such allowed disclosures are those for “health oversight activities”:

     (d) Standard: Uses and disclosures for health oversight activities.
     (1) Permitted disclosures. A covered entity may disclose protected health information to a health oversight agency for oversight activities authorized by law, including audits; civil, administrative, or criminal investigations; inspections; licensure or disciplinary actions; civil, administrative, or criminal proceedings or actions; or other activities necessary for appropriate oversight of:
     (i) The health care system;
     (ii) Government benefit programs for which health information is relevant to beneficiary eligibility;
     (iii) Entities subject to government regulatory programs for which health information is necessary for determining compliance with program standards; or
     (iv) Entities subject to civil rights laws for which health information is necessary for determining compliance.
     Id. § 164.512(d).

The privacy rule defines “health oversight agency” as follows: Health oversight agency means an agency or authority of the United States, a State, a territory, a political subdivision of a State or territory, or an Indian tribe, or a person or entity acting under a grant of authority from or contract with such public agency, including the employees or agents of such public agency or its contractors or persons or entities to whom it has granted authority, that is authorized by law to oversee the health care system (whether public or private) or government programs in which health information is necessary to determine eligibility or compliance, or to enforce civil rights laws for which health information is relevant. Id. at 164.512 (emphasis added). Notwithstanding that it is a non-governmental entity, CARF would qualify as a “health oversight agency” if either the probation office grants it oversight authority or the probation office authorizes the vendor to grant CARF oversight authority. Of course, CARF would have to be otherwise “authorized by law to oversee the health care system.” Presumably, state laws in the districts where CARF has conducted audits authorize CARF to oversee treatment facilities. Thus, the privacy rule allows health care providers (which are “covered entities”) to disclose protected health information to “health oversight agenc[ies] for oversight activities authorized by law.” This could potentially include state, federal, or nonprofits such as CARF. Whether an entity qualifies as a health oversight agency, however, is an issue for each vendor to resolve under § 164.512 and state law.

II. The Drug Treatment Confidentiality Regulations Section 2.53 of the drug treatment confidentiality regulations allows federal, state, and local governmental agencies to review treatment records if authorized by law to regulate the vendor's activities. 42 C.F.R. § 2.53(a)(1)(i). In addition “a quality  improvement organization performing a utilization or quality control review” or an entity “determined by the program director to be qualified to conduct [] audit or evaluation activities” may review treatment records. Id. § 2.53(a)(1)(ii) & (a)(2). If the vendor determines that any of the foregoing entities are authorized to have access to treatment records under § 2.53(a), the reviewing entity must “agree[] in writing to comply with the limitations on redisclosure and use in [§ 2.53(d)].”  Section 2.53(d) essentially limits an auditor to disclosing and using treatment information that was disclosed during an audit to notify the treatment provider of the auditor's evaluation. Section 2.53(d) also provides for disclosure and use to investigate or prosecute a program, or a person holding the records, if the agency obtains a court order under 42 C.F.R. § 2.66. In sum, the HIPAA privacy rule allows auditors to have access to records if they are employed by a “health oversight agency” and they are performing “oversight activities authorized by law.” The drug treatment confidentiality regulations also allow access so long as a § 2.53 compliant form is signed by the auditor who qualifies under § 2.53(a). Attached is a draft form demonstrating what the drug treatment confidentiality regulations would require an auditor to sign before receiving access to drug treatment records. Vendors should currently be using a form similar to this. The regulations do not specify that such a form need be completed for each file reviewed. Rather, they state that when an auditor  reviews “patient records,” she must sign a written agreement to comply with the § 2.53 limits on disclosure. [This is interpreted] as simply requiring one written agreement for each audit or review of multiple records. A sample release form for these purposes can be found on this website in the Vendor Information/Forms section.

No. You are correct that your BPA requires in section section C that, “The vendor shall segregate defendant/offender files from other vendor records.” This separation is required only for the actual treatment files, not the clients themselves. The vendor, may place federal defendants/offenders in group counseling sessions with other non-federal clients. For example, a cognitive-behavioral treatment group of federal offenders and state offenders would be appropriate under this contract. The vendor should, however, check with other contracted agencies to ensure those agencies are in agreement with such a “mixed” group. The vendor  would also be cautioned about placing federal offenders/defendants in a group with non-criminal justice clients.