Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cr-00072-WYD

Document 80

Filed 10/10/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No.: 04-cr-00072-WYD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. CRAIG HENRY BARNUM, Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on October 10, 2007. Present were the following: Matthew Kirsch, Assistant United States Attorney, Edward Harris, 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 10th day of October, 2007. By the Court: s/ Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:04-cr-00072-WYD

Document 80

Filed 10/10/2007

Page 2 of 2

United States v. Craig Henry Barnum Case Number 04-cr-00072-WYD

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION This matter comes before the court on a Petition for Issuance of a Warrant Due to Violations of Probation and Warrant for Arrest of Probationer/Supervised Release. The Petition alleges that on May 12, 2005, the defendant was placed on supervision by District Judge Daniel, with the special conditions that the defendant not incur new credit charges or open additional lines of credit without the approval of his supervising officer, 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, and finally that the defendant be placed in home detention for a period of four months. On July 6, 2005, Judge Daniel modified the conditions of supervision to include placement at a community corrections center for a period of 120 days. On November 6, 2006, the defendant's conditions of probation were further modified to include placement in a residential reentry center for a period of up to five months. During a hearing on October 10, 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 defendant has failed to sustain his burden under Rule 32.1. The Petition alleges several violations of probation in 2005 and 2006. In addressing the issue of detention, however, I have focused on the alleged violations occurring in 2007 and since the District Court modified conditions of probation on November 9, 2006. I specifically note that the Petition indicates the defendant was charged with felony drug possession on July 20, 2007. On the same day, the defendant was separately charged with driving under restraint, failure to display proof of insurance and speeding. On July 31, 2007, the defendant tested positive for anabolic steroids. The defendant failed to make required restitution payments on five separate occasions in 2007. Given the defendant's most recent failures to comply with the conditions of probation 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.