Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cr-00098-SLR Document 10 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
mt AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Carl Wage Wilson, Jr. Case CD 7- Q 3*5; g
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 (I) The defendant is charged with an offense described in IB U.S.C. § 3 l42(f)(l) and has been convicted of a 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 of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3 l56(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
=i=
Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in IS U.S.C.
§ 3 l42(f)(l)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
Q (2) The offense described in finding (I) 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 tive 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. (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 of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in .
Q under IS U.S.C. § 924(c).
Q (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding I 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. WM'- N a n
(2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the commun {y. L .... ...... 1 {
*§ écvit I
a s-1··» .-
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 of the evidence: Defendant was detained because there are no conditions or combination thereof that will reasonable assure his
appearance as requred and the safety of the community . Defendant is charged with child porn offense for which the rebuttable presumption applies.
Defendant has not rebutted that presumption and the evidence against defendant is substantial in support of the offense, which supports the issue
of danger to the community.
1. Defendant refused to be interviewed by Pretrial Services until he spoke with an attorney which is his right, but as a result the court has no
confirmed infonnatin regarding his background.
2. Criminal history is primarily traffic offense, but defendant has a 2006 offensive touching conviction involving his girlfriend.
3. At the time of this incident, he resided with his parents (while the present offenses occurred).
4. Defendant’s fonner employment which he lost as a result of the present charges involved working with computers.
.B.{,,,A,,,/. d,4~..4—a..·f¢»L dvluéw .<:A·£z»·s Ang $..4 ,·e.r¢.e.»e(·m;> fc/bc A céav hq e;4.>.%,,g,.,,(_

Case 1 :07-cr-00098-SLR Document 10 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
% AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Part IH—Directions 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 • . · a · · United States or on request of an attorney for the
Government, the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall deliver th :. — - t nt to the Unite i States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in
connection with a court proceeding. _
July 17, 2007 *14...
Date ignature 0fJ ».* I
Mary Pat Thynge, agistrate Judge
v Name and T ide of Judicial Ojfdcer
*Insert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § S 1 et seq.); (h) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 951 er
seq.); or (c) Section 1 ofAct of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).