Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07—cr—00059-SLR Document 14 Filed 05/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
% AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
férn / J ¢ Case
Defendant .
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3 l42(f), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following facts require the
detention ofthe defendant pending trial in this case.
Part I—Findings of Fact
Q (1) The defendant is charged with an offense described in l8 U.S.C. § 3 l42(f)(l) and has been convicted ofa Q federal offense Q state
or local offense that would have been a federal offense ifa circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had existed that is
Q a crime ofviolence as defined in l8 U.S.C. § 3l56(a)(4).
Q an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death.
Q an offense for which a maximum temi ofimprisonment often years or more is prescribed in
>l¢
Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(f)(l)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
Q (2) The offense described in finding (1) was committed while the defendant was on release pending trial for a federal, state or local offense.
Q (3) A period ofnot more than five years has elapsed since the Q date of conviction Q release ofthe defendant from imprisonment
for the offense described in finding (l).
Q (4) Findings Nos. (I), (2) and (3) establish a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
safety of (an) other person(s) and the community. I further find that the defendant has not rebutted this presumption.
Alternative Findings (A)
(1) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
for which a maximum term ofimprisonment often years or more is prescribed in .
Q under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Q (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding l that no condition or combination ofconditions will reasonably assure
the appearance ofthe defendant as required and the safety ofthe community.
Alternative Findings (B)
(I) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear.
(2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the community.
Part II——Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
I find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and convincing evidence a prepon-
derance ofthe evidence; Mm _ ir? {#5 Wg Qé B Azléz
Wage.; x .74a Vazfeéy-¢ J:/=•·¢#4°·? ¢*·#‘ A? /•/·¢»¢g; dy!
‘ Zur
gz; ag.: .//·;g,’g§;;,......,§;(_{> ,,;/»¢’é·: 6£ 5:
,0% J ' E... —._...., _
I F l L E D
MAY l 6 2007
U.S. DISERHZT COI IRT
i____ DISTRICI F-i*··¤iRi_

Case 1:07—cr—00059-SLR Document 14 Filed 05/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
Part HI——Directi0ns Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the custody ofthe Attorney General or his designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate,
to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a
reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attomey for the
Govemment, the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall deliver t defe the United States marshal for the purpose ofan appearance in
connection with a court proceeding.
JZ ji
/J J
Date Signaz o udicial Omcer
Mary Pat Thynge, Magistrate Judge
Name and Title of./udicial Ojicer
*1nsert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 951 ez
seq.); or (c) Section 1 ofAct of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).