Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :06-cr-00081-GIVIS Document 16 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 1 ot 2
tes AO 472 (Rev. 3/B6) Order of Detention Pending Trial
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Cas ce se- si cane)
Defendant
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), a detention hearing has been held. I eonclude that the following facts require the
detention of the 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)(l) and has been convicted of a Q federal offense Q state
or loeal 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 deHned 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
=l=
Q a felony that was eornrnitted after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3l42(f)(1)(A)—(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
Q (2) The offense described in finding (1) was committed while thc 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 arebuttable 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)
X (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 21 USC§ 841 .
Q under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
XQ (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding l that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure ‘
the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety ofthe 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—W1·itten Statement of Reasons for Detention
I find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by X clear and eonvincing evidence X a prepon-
derance of the evidence: Defendant is charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, possession of a firearm, use or possession of a
firearm during the commission of a drug trafficking offense. The court finds that there are no condtions or combination thereof 1J1at will reasonably
assure defendant’s appearance as required and the safety of the eommunity.
l. Although defendant is presently employed and has lived in DE for most of his life and could reside with his mother upon release, defendant’s past
criminal history warrants detention.
2. He denied any alcohol problems, but was arrested for DUI in July 2004.
3. Defendant was convicted of burglary 3d (reduced from burglary lst), assault 3d in Sept. 2000, for which he was found VOP in January 2001,
March 2001 & May 2003. For his DUI charge in July 2004, he had two FTAs and discharged from probation as unimproved May 2006. Another
capias was issued for an FTA for dmnk on the highway (charges were later dismissed). Defendant entered a guilty plea for hindering prosecution
and hc FTA appear for his arraignment on this charge for which a capias wa issued. He was also found VOP in October 2005. Defendant was
charged with reckless driving December 2005 for which two FTAs were issued. He was also found VOP on his conviction for driving while sus-
pended. Defendant at the time of his detention hearing had outstanding charges in Superior Court for possession of a narcotic, unauthorized
window tinting and other traffic violations from an arrest in Mareh 2006 for which his trial was scheduled for Sept 6 2006 and finally 3 drug related
charges including possession with intent to deliver which arose after the arrest for his federal offenses that were also scheduled for trial in Sept 2006.
In other words, defendant was charged on three separate occassions in 2006 roughly a month (March, April & May) apart for various drug related
offenses. At the time of the federal offenses he was on state release for the first set of drug offenses and after the federal offenses was charged
with another set of drug related offenses.

Case 1 :06-cr-00081-GIVIS Document 16 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 2 of 2
Kes AO 472 (Rev. 3/B6) 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 eontinement 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 • of the United States or on request of an attorney for the
Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver th s s - - a ' ed States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in
connection with a eourt proceeding. [
( 4
October 26, 2006 Ah fi" {J _,.. , ,1
Date i · Signature of Jud a Q1 ` -
Many Pat Thynge, agistrate Judge
Name and T itle of Judicial Qfficer
*Insert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Aet (21 U.S.C. § 801 er seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 951 er
seq.); or (c) Seetion 1 ofAct of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).