Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cr-00277-WDM

Document 34

Filed 11/02/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No.: 03-CR-277-WM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. LUIS JESUS MUNOZ Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS

THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on November 2, 2005. Present were the following: Kenneth Harmon, Assistant United States Attorney, Scott Verholak, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court reviewed the Petition on Supervised Release and heard the argument of counsel. The Court finds there is no combination of conditions that it could set that would properly assure the defendant' appearance at further proceedings in this case or reasonably assure the s safety of the community, based upon the attached findings. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or their 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; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult confidentially with defense counsel; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon order of this Court or on request of an attorney for the United States of America, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with this proceeding.

Case 1:03-cr-00277-WDM

Document 34

Filed 11/02/2005

Page 2 of 3

DATED and ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2005. By the Court: s/ Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:03-cr-00277-WDM

Document 34

Filed 11/02/2005

Page 3 of 3

United States v. Jesus Munoz Case Number 03-CR-277-WM

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION This matter comes before the court on a Petition on Supervised Release and Warrant for Arrest of Probationer/Supervised Release. The Petition alleges that on July 20, 2000, the defendant was placed on supervision by District Judge Fallon in the Western District of Texas, with the condition that the defendant refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance and that the defendant participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug addiction and alcohol dependency. The District Court further ordered that the defendant shall abstain from the use of alcohol or other intoxicants during the term of supervision. The defendant also was prohibited from residing in any place where firearms were possessed or stored During a hearing on November 2, 2005, the defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing under Rule 32.1 of the Federal of Criminal Procedure, and did not present any information relating to the issue of detention. The defendant, through counsel, also advised the court that he was not contesting the government' request for detention. Based upon the facts alleged in the Petition and in s light of the defendant' waiver, the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant s violated one or more conditions of his release. Under Rule 32.1, the court " may release or detain the [defendant] under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) pending further proceedings. The burden of establishing that the person will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community rests with the [defendant]." In making my findings of fact, I have taken judicial notice of the information set forth in the Petition on Supervised Release and the entire court file. I further note the defendant' decision not to s contest detention at this time. Weighing all of the information presently before the court, I find that defendant has failed to sustain his burden under Rule 32.1. I specifically note that the Petition on Supervised Release indicates that the defendant possessed and used alcohol beverages on January 6, 2005. The Petition also alleges that the defendant committed several serious felonies, including attempted felony murder and assault with a deadly weapon, as part of the incident on January 6, 2005. Given the defendant' apparent failure to comply with the conditions of supervised release imposed by s the District Court, as well as his commission of violent felony offenses, I find there is no combination of conditions that I could set that would properly assure the defendant' appearance at further s proceedings in this case or reasonably assure the safety of the community.