Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :06-cr-00131-SLR Document 11 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 1 of 2
re AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Lester B. Pittman, Jr. Case C Q O (0 _ [*3 ( __ 5 i__"j2 _
Defendant
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3l42(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 (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 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 temi ofimprisonment often years or more is prescribed in
>l<
Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted oftwo 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 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. I further find that the defendant has not rebutted this presumption.
Altemative Findings (A)
X (1) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
for which a maximum term ofimprisonment often years or more is prescribed in 21 USC § 841 .
Q under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). ·.
X (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 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 II—Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
I find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by X clear and convincing evidence X a re on-
P P
derance ofthe evidence: As a result ofa detention hearing held in December 2006, the court detained defendant on the basis of risk ofnon-
appearance and danger to the community for the following reasons:
1. Nature ofthe offense- possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base.
2. Strength ofthe evidence against defendant. Defendant engaged in hand-to-hand transaction and was observed by investigators. Defendant further
admitted to using the drug.
3. Despite having a wife and 4 children, defendant has not been employed since his layoff from Pepsi in 2004. From the evidence and argument,
it appears defendant until his detention hearing did little to find other employment. Defendant’s criminal history begins at age 17 for theft in
Maryland. The probation for that crime was revoked because ofa new offense. In 1990 at age 23 defendant was charged with 2 counts of rape 2d,
but was found guilty ofthird degree sexual assault. In 1996, he was charged with assault with intent to murder and was found guilty ofbattery for
which he received 5 years+ injail. Defendant violated the probation for this conviction. In October 2006, defendant was charged in DE state court
with possession of a controlled substance with intent to delivery. These charges were converted to the present federal offense. This is his first
offense in a state other than Maryland. Defendant has been convicted of other offenses in Maryland includi g theft,,.disorderIy.conduct,-reeis '
arrest. He has a past history of violent behavior, no ties to DE and due to the maximum penalties, he is a risrk of non-appearzlnccé I-Iisr;pasD I
assaultive behavior, past arrest for dmg offenses all point to an individual who is a danger to the communityi _“"‘ "‘
I r I -; is-‘T=<3‘Q»‘ l I
; A C . . il
Z =.. . " ..i`·‘:é.;I L?iQ¤l.¤i1
I ·- __-. F li` '-.·\"·.iiQ

Case 1:06-cr-00131-SLR Document 11 Filed O1/O3/2007 Page 2 of 2
% 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 attomey for the
Government, the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the Uqited States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in
connection with a court proceeding. _
Januag 3, 2007 I , · . ,*__ ,%.2 “ ,-’ Q" J`; *3
Date ( _ _ Signature 0fJurlicz*n;[,i;j€cer
J Mary Pat Thynge, Magistrate Judge
Name and Title 0fJudicial Oyficer
*1nseit 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 0fAct ofSept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).