Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00192-LTB

Document 69

Filed 12/26/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No.: 01-cr-00192-LTB UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. ISAAC VIGIL, Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on December 21, 2007. Present were the following: Suneeta Hazra, Assistant United States Attorney, Janine Yunker, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court reviewed the entire court file and considered the comments of counsel. The Court has concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant, 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. DATED and ENTERED this 26th day of December, 2007. By the Court: s/ Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:01-cr-00192-LTB

Document 69

Filed 12/26/2007

Page 2 of 3

United States v. Isaac Vigil Case Number 01-cr-00192-LTB

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION This matter comes before the court on an Amended Petition for Issuance of Arrest Warrant Due to Violations of Supervised Release. The Petition alleges that on August 29, 2002, the defendant was placed on supervision by District Judge Babcock, with the special 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. On May 14, 2007, the defendant appeared before Judge Babcock based upon a petition alleging violations of supervised release. After finding that violations had occurred, Judge Babcock modified the conditions of release to require that the defendant reside in a Residential Reentry Center for a period not to exceed 180 days. During a hearing on December 21, 2007, 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's request for detention. Based upon the facts alleged in the Petition and in light of the defendant's waiver, the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant 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 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 the defendant has failed to sustain his burden under Rule 32.1. I specifically note that the Petition indicates the defendant failed to report a contact with law enforcement authorities on November 28, 2006. It is further alleged that the defendant failed to participate in required drug counseling on December 7 and December 19, 2006, and January 24, 2007. The defendant failed to provide required urine samples on seven different occasions and failed to report to his supervising officer as required on January 8, 10, and 16, 2007. More recently, the defendant was cited for failing to comply with the rules of the Residential Reentry Center on June 17, 21 and 24, 2007. On June 24, 2007, the defendant failed to notify his supervising officer of his change of address and assumed an absconder status. Given the defendant's apparent inability or unwillingness to comply with the conditions of supervised release imposed by the District Court, I find there is no combination of conditions that I could set that would properly assure the defendant's appearance at further proceedings in this case.

Case 1:01-cr-00192-LTB

Document 69

Filed 12/26/2007

Page 3 of 3