Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :08-mj-00149 Document 7 Filed O9/O4/2008 Page 1 of 2
m AO 472 (Rev. 3/S6) Order of Detention Pending Trial
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Mario Francisco Martinez-Hcmandez Case O 8.. q` A/\
Defendant
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3l42(t), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that thc following facts require the
detention ofthe defendant pcnding trial in this case.
Part I—Findings of Fact
Q (1) The defendant is charged with an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 3l42(t)(1) and has been convicted ofa Q federal offense Q state
or local offense that would have been a federal offense if a circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had existed that is
Q a crime ofviolence as defined in 18 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 term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in
*
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)(1)(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 of not more than five years has elapsed since the Q date of conviction Q release of the defendant from imprisonment
for the offense described in finding (1).
Q (4) Findings Nos. (1), (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. l 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 of imprisonment of ten 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 1 that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure
the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community.
Alternative Findings (B)
(1) 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 H—Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
1 find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and convincing evidence a prepon—
derance of the evidence: Defendant is charged with illegal reentry after deportation. He does not presently contest the govemment’s motion for
detention, but reserves the right to do so in the future which was grantcd. The evidence strongly suggests that defendant is not a citizen of the
US or legally in this country. The evidence also shows that defendant was deported in 2007. Defendant has prior convictions for driving offenses
for offensive touching and civil contempt. He presently has a number of matters pending in the DE state court for malicious mischief by a motor
vehiele, failure to report an aceident, leaving the scene of an accident, reckless driving and driving while license suspended, unauthorized use
of vehicle without consent, DUI, failure to answer summons, failure to have insurance. The failure to answer summons and leaving the scene of
an accident charges suggests independent of defendant’s noncontesting detention that he would be a risk of non-appearance. Further, the fact that
defendant was found VOP for the offensive touching conviction indicates that he does not abide by court orders. Therefore, the court finds that
there are no conditions or combination thereof that will reasonably assure defendant’s appearance as required.
1 ..-1 1- E 9-
~ ··a1·· 1 —--·---—.,`.3
Z; S _
it . SE ’ i r · t
i Q P i zum , {
i |*‘_`-_`T""'*""*‘·1··-——·—·---:-.j
, up DISFRJCT COURT V
awww l)|SfR~iCT Cf DELAWARE

Case 1 :08-mj-00149 Document 7 Filed O9/O4/2008 Page 2 of 2
Q AO 472 (Rev. 3/S6) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Part III—Directions Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate,
to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or sewing 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 of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to · · - · ` · • States marshal for thc purpose of an appearance in
connection with a court proceeding.
% 9
September 4, 2008 4-; _ jjj
Date 7. Signature 0fJu O mer
Mary Pat Thynge, · - istrate Judge
Name and Title 0fJudic1`al Ojfficer
*Insert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Aet (21 U.S.C. § 951 er
seq.); or (c) Section 1 ofAct of Sept. I5, l980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).

Case 1:08-mj-00149

Document 7

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-mj-00149

Document 7

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 2 of 2