Free Order on Motion to Detain Pending Trial - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cr-00051-GMS Document 9 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 1 of 2 ·
tts AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Ondcr of Detention Pending Trial
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Delaware
UNTTED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Michael Anderson Case C p` OS .. 5 I Q MS
Defendant
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, IS U.S.C. § 3 |42(f), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following facts require the
detention ofthe defendant pending trial in this ease.
Part I—Findings of Fact
Q (1) The defendant is charged with an offense described in IS U.S.C. § 3 l42(f)(l) and has been convicted ofa 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 ofviolcnce as defined in IS U.S.C. § 3I56(a)(4).
Q an offense for which the maximum sentence is lite imprisonment or death.
Q an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in
it
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 I42(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 five years has elapsed since the Q date of conviction Q release ofthe defendant from imprisonment
for the offense described in finding (I).
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 pcrson(s) and the community. I further find that the defendant has not rebutted this presumption.
Alternative Findings (A)
Q (I) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
Q for which a maximum tenn of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in .
Q under IS U.S.C. § 924(c).
Q (2) The defendant has not rebuttcd the presumption established by finding I that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure
the appearance ofthe defendant as required and the safety ofthe community.
Alternative Findings (B)
(l) 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 Il—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 a prepon-
demnce of the evidence . Defendant is charged with 4 violations of the Hobbs Act and 4 bank robberies, all considered to be acts of violence.
The evidence against defendant is strong and includes: his admission to committing 3 bank bank robberies (but denyjng the other offenses); despite
denying the other offenses, he identified himself on the survclliance cameras of videos taken of him in the stories and banks; bait money and
serially numbered 2 dollar bills fiom one ofthe bank robberies in his possession; clothes matching those described bythe witnesses and evidenced
on the tapes as being worn by the robber; dcfendant‘s admission that he wore this clothing to commit the three robberies he has admitted;
defendant’s admission that he committed the robberies to support his heroin habit. Further bases for his detention are: at the time of these offenses,
defendant was on probation in PA for retail theft, admitted serious heroin abuser and commission of S crimes of violence within a 3 week period.
Although defendant has lifelong ties to the DE county community, has employment, is now detoxed as a result of confinement while awaiting
for the federal charges to be brought and has family support (his parents), these positives to not overcome the aforementioned evidence and
serious substance abuse history. As a result, the court concludes that there are no conditions or combination thereof that will reasonably assure
the safety of the community upon defendant`s release. Such conduct while on state probation further shows that defendant is not amenable to
supervision.

Case 1 :05-cr-00051—Gl\/IS Document 9 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 2 of 2
R: AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Part IH——Directions Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the custody ofthe Attomey General orhis designated representative for eontinement in a corrections facility separate,
to the extent practicable, item 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 of the corrections facility shall deli fe • · • · · _ .__g-• States marshal for the purpose of an appearance
in connection with a court proceeding. _ 0
_,V ‘ 4
June s. 2005 .... / , ’¤~
Date i Sigmuure of Judicial cer
Mary Pat Thyngc, Magistrate Judge
Name and Title of Judicial Ojicer
*lnsert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § S0] et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (2l U.S.C. § 95l
etseq.); or (e) Section l oi`Act of`Sept. 15, l980 (2l U.S.C. § 955a).