Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cr—OOO37-JJ F Document 25 Filed 05/10/2005 Page 1 of 2
Q AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Alirio Gallego-Dugue Case Number: 6 , 5 »·» - ‘ I
Defendant C JI \
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude 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)(1) and has been convicted of a 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 of violence 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 of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in
*
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.
§ 3142(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 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 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.
Alternative Findings (A)
Q (1) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
Q for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten 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 of conditions will reasonably assure
the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community.
Alternative Findings (B)
X (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 infomation submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and convincing evidence X a prepon-
derance of the evidence. Defendant is from Columbia. If convicted he is subject to revocation of his green card and deportation. On April 14,
2005, defendant and 2 women (co-defendants) were stopped by DSP in New Castle County. Defendant resides in New Jersey. They had just
left a store after making purchases with counterfeit money. Found in the vehicle was over $12,000 in counterfeit money. The officers interviewed
the two women who reported that this had been the 8“‘ store that they had been to whereby defendant gave them the money and then dropped
them off at various stores to exchange the fake $100 bills for "real" money. After getting the real money, it would then be wired to Columbia.
Defendant admitted to knowing that the money was counterfeit. It appears that this money may also have originated from Columbia. He also
admitted to buying $10,000 worth of counterfeit money for $5,000. This particular money is very well done — essentially good fake money, which
included a watemtark. This fake money is consistent with other counterfeit money found in other jurisdictions (CA, IL, CO, FL for example).
Although defendant has lived in the US for most of his life, he presently has a Columbian passport and he attended high school in that country. He
presently is not employed and has no source of income. His last employment was a year ago. In addition to the present charges,
he is also facing charges by the DSP of possession of a non-narcotic controlled substance, possession of a narcotic controlled substance and con-
spiracy second degree. Defendant was denied naturalization in February 2004 in part due to his various addresses in NJ and poor moral
character (lying). Although defendant has friends and family in the US, there is no evidence that they were aware of his possible criminal
conduct and there is serious doubt regarding his actual residency. For the reasons contained herein, the court · dsithat defen -~··~—
night. E- I L E L,
_ V y 4 I
;_lII\_IlI ous I
H .
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1 :05-cr—O0037-JJF Document 25 Filed 05/10/2005 Page 2 of 2
Q1 AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Part III—Directions Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the custody ofthe Attomey 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 of the corrections facility sh • e rver ·· • efendan · . ¤ United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance
in connection with a court proceeding. é
AQ /
May 10. 2005 -; 1§;.(14uh».
Date . Signature 0f.lud ' l I cer
Mary Pat Thynge, Magistrate Judge
Name and Title of Judicial Ojicer
*Insert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (2l U.S.C. § 801 et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 95l
et seq.); or (c) Section l ofAct of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).