Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00100-EWN

Document 60

Filed 03/30/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No.: 01-cr-00100-EWN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. BURNEST JOHNSON, Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on March 30, 2006. Present were the following: Tim Neff, Assistant United States Attorney, Susan Fish, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court reviewed the entire case 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 30th day of March, 2006. By the Court: s/ Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

United States v. Burnest Johnson

Case 1:01-cr-00100-EWN

Document 60

Filed 03/30/2006

Page 2 of 2

Case Number 01-cr-00100-EWN

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION This matter comes before the court on a Petition on Supervised Release and Warrant for Arrest of Probationer/Supervised Release. The Petition alleges that on October 25, 2001, 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 was prohibited from incurring new credit card charges or opening additional lines of credit without the approval of his supervising officer. On August 9, 2004, the District Court modified the defendant' conditions to include the requirement that the defendant reside in a s community corrections center for a period of four months or until such time as the defendant was released from that facility by the supervising officer. The District Court again modified the conditions of supervision on February 25, 2005, to require the defendant to participate in a program of mental health treatment, as directed by the supervising officer. During a hearing on March 30, 2006, 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 s alleged in the Petition and in light of the defendant' waiver, the court finds that probable cause s 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 on 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 Supervised Release indicates that the defendant admitted to possessing and using illegal controlled substances on multiple occasions in 2004 and 2005. The Petition further alleges repeated occasions in 2004 and 2005 when the defendant failed to participate in drug treatment as directed by the supervising officer. It further appears that the defendant failed repeatedly to make required restitution payments. Given the defendant' apparent failure to s 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' appearance s at further proceedings in this case.