Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00380-EWN

Document 73

Filed 11/08/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No.: 01-CR-380-N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. ROBERT EDWARD KENT Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING REVOCATION PROCEEDIGNS

THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on November 2, 2005. Present were the following: Joshua Stein, Assistant United States Attorney, Virginia Grady, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court reviewed the Petition on Probation and Supervised Release and heard the argument of counsel. The Court finds that the evidence establishes there is no combination of conditions that could be set that would properly assure the defendant' appearance at further proceedings in this s case, based upon the attached findings. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or their 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; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult confidentially with defense counsel; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon order of this Court or on request of an attorney for the United States of America, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with this proceeding.

Case 1:01-cr-00380-EWN

Document 73

Filed 11/08/2005

Page 2 of 3

DATED and ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2005. By the Court: s/Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:01-cr-00380-EWN

Document 73

Filed 11/08/2005

Page 3 of 3

United States v. Robert Edward Kent Case Number 01-CR-380 N

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION This matter comes before the court on a Petition on Probation and Supervised Release and Warrant for Arrest of Probationer/Supervised Release. The Petition alleges that on January 30, 2002, the defendant was placed on supervision by District Judge Nottingham, with the condition that the defendant participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug abuse, and that the defendant abstain from the use of alcohol and other intoxicants during the course of treatment. The defendant' s supervised release was modified on November 1, 2002 to include residence in a residential substance abuse treatment program for a period of up to 60 days. On December 13, 2002, the defendant' s supervised release again was modified to require residence at a community corrections center for up to six months. On June 11, 2003, the defendant was required to ingest monitored antabuse if not medically contraindicated. On November 7, 2003 and, again, on August 6, 2004, the defendant' s supervised release was modified to require residence in a community corrections center. During a hearing on November 1, 2005, the defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing under Rule 32.1 of the Federal of Criminal Procedure, and did not present any information relating to the issue of detention. The defendant, through counsel, also advised the court that he was not contesting the government' request for detention. Based upon the facts alleged in the Petition and in s light of the defendant' waiver, the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant s violated one or more conditions of his release. Under Rule 32.1, the court " may release or detain the [defendant] under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) pending further proceedings. The burden of establishing that the person will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community rests with the [defendant]." In making my findings of fact, I have taken judicial notice of the information set forth in the Petition on Probation and Supervised Release, and the entire court file. I further note the defendant' s decision not to contest detention at this time. Weighing all of the information presently before the court, I find that defendant has failed to sustain his burden under Rule 32.1. I specifically note that the Petition on Probation and Supervised Release indicate that on several occasions the defendant failed to participate in substance abuse/mental health treatment as directed by the supervising officer possessed and failed to provide required urine samples. It also appears that the defendant failed to notify his supervising officer of a change in his employment status. Finally, the Petition indicates that the defendant failed to advise his supervising officer of his current residence or whereabout after June 20, 2005. Given the defendant' apparent failure to comply with the conditions of supervised release s imposed by the District Court, I find there is no combination of conditions that I could set that would properly assure the defendant' appearance at further proceedings in this case. s