Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cr-00010-JJF Document 11 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 1 of 2
®.t AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial -
District of _ Delaware
UNTTED STATES OF AMERICA v
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING 'I AL
Walter Anderson Case C A O',}- IO -j/{ IC
Defendant
ln accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3l42(f), a detention hearing has been held. 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 3l42(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 federal jurisdiction had existed that is
Q a crime ofviolence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3156(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
¤|<
I Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted oftwo or more prior federal offenses described in 18 U.S.C.
1 1 A - , or compara e state or oca o enses. n H _
3 42( (C bl 1 1 ff
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 ofthe defendant from imprisonment
__, _ for_the offense described in finding (1). A Q_
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 End 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 tenn 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 Ending 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. ; F I L E D
(2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the communiky.
i
l 5 R .
* —
1 <‘ I , 1
{ _ n E1[$.*i;i_·§fT fi-? iff!.-'·MRi ,
Part H—Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
i 1 find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and convincing evidence X a prepon-if
derance ofthe evidence: Defendant is charged with possession of counterfeit securities under 18 USC § 513(a). The evidence propounded against
defendant is strong. On January 9, 2007, defendant gave counterfeit checks to a Cl and there is strong evidence of his discussions regarding
costs for the transaction. Essentially, defendant admitted his involvement in the offense. As a result ofa review ofthe evidence, the court finds
that there are no conditions that will reasonably assure defendant’s appearance as required:
1. Defendant has a criminal history since 1994, which began as ajuvenile. His Hrst offense was for shoplifting. ln 1998 he was charged with theft
under $1000 and conspiracy. Prior to his conviction for this offense, he failed to appear in court on two occassions for which capiases were issued.
Within a year of his release from prison and while on probation, he was charged with VOP twice and and three FTAs were issued, the last occurring
in September 2006 which appears to be outstanding. In 2001, he was charged with forgery and theft in PA, sentenced and in 2005 a bench warrant
was issued for a VOP which appears to be outstanding. He also has an outstanding capias for driving during a period of suspension in PA issued
October 2006. He is wanted in PA and has been a fugitive from thatjurisdiction. Defendant was charged with this offense, picked up in DE and
then failed to appear for a subsequent hearing which would have resulted in his extradition.
2. His aliases are numerous including Baby Anderson, Babywalter Anderson, Rahsaan Anderson, X Babywalter, Pookie Anderson and Mike Piftf
He is known to use an additional birthdate and 3 other SS#. All of his prior criminal offenses have been consistent with his present charge, that is, 0
theft, forgery, shoplifting. .
3. Although defendant claims that he is suffering from a serious health condition, there was no indication that he has attempted to treat that condition
for at least the past two years. lt appeared that raising this concern with the court was purely for release. `

Case 1 :07-cr-00010-JJF Document 11 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 2 of 2
<®t AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Part III—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 court of the United States or on request of an attomey for the
Govemment, the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall deliver the defen ant to the United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in
connection with a court proceeding. ·~ D
February 15, 2007 / __ "·——
Date Signatur J edicial Omcer
Mary Pat Thynge, Magistrate Judge
Name and Title 0fJudicia/ Ojfcer
*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 of Act of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).