Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :O7—cr-00039-JJF Document 9 Filed O3/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
sel AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial

District of _ Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Jose Bezarez Case , _ M p-["
Defendant
ln 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——Fir1dings of Fact
Q (1) The defendant is charged with an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1) 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 federaljurisdiction 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 ofimprisonment often years or more is prescribed in
=r·
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. _
§ 3 l42(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 trialfor 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 ofthe 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. 1 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 tema of imprisonment 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 1 that no condition or combination ofconditions will reasonably assure
the appearance ofthe defendant as required and the safety ofthe community.
Alternative Findings (B)
X (1) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear.
X (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 ind that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and convincing evidence a prepon-
derance ofthe evidence: the court finds that there are no conditions or combination rr ereofthat will reasonably assure defendant’s appearance as re-
quired or the safety ofthe community for the following reasons:
1. the evidence against defendant is strong. Defendant admitted to possession of the weapon. Further defendant was observed atempted to get rid of
the weapon during his flight from officers.
2. Defendant is unemployed and there is really no employment history at least not one showing any stability. "
3. Defendant has aliases and is also known by Jose Bezarcez, Jose Papeto, 1-Ioseo Bazarez, Jose Bezares, Jose Garcia, Chip Bezarez, records show 3
SS#.
4. Although defendant claims that he has been diagnosed as bi-polar and schizophreric, he takes no or stopped taking his medications. Apparently,
he self-medicates by using on a regular basis PCP, MJ and ecstacy. In fact, it was evident at the time of his initial appearance that defendant was or
had used some drug. He was, however, competent to understand the process as confirmed by his attorney.
5. Defendant’s criminal history begins at age 12 and continues on a regular basis thrcugh 2004. He had 15 arrests as ajuvenile with 9 findings of
(confirmed) of delinquency, a number of which resulted in confinement. He has been found in VOP on 6 separate occasions. He has been convicted
of felony possession of handgun and possession ofa controlled substance, unlawful sexual intercourse.3"’...possessio¤..o.fa.narcotLc,.r11a.i.r1taining a
vehicle for keeping of controlled substances (at least 2 separate convictions, one ofwliich he was on probation atffhe tiimelofthris o C nse).
Moreover, a warrant was issued on February 3, 2007 for JP Court 20 for possession of a firearm durirlg the cp_mn5i;siou_o_[;a ckless
endangering 1". { I 1
·* ; 1 _ '
i · It-1AFl 6 ang}?
1 L l _
I
l -.....-..-...-- . .. --. i
1 11 7- l`l‘.ri*=iitZ1l]G'.lRT 1
in _ 1`·!*".`Ei··`]1`C·l [¥_§_!..W&*1Fli .

Case 1 :O7—cr-00039-JJF Document 9 Filed O3/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
Qs AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Part III-—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 attorney for the
Government, the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall deliver the defendant togt * ' d States marshal for the purpose ofan appearance in
connection with a court proceeding. " - ‘ ``-- I
March 6, 2007 - kn-~ "
Date Signature of./udt'c' yy` ·r
Mary Pat Thynge, Magistrate Judge
Name and Title of./udictql Ojjicer
*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 et
seq.); or (c) Section 1 of Act of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).