Free Order of Detention - District Court of California - California

. I` t .
mm§s§t§r%§·sItilti@ftlbbEPF¤iPr%tt&H8Eh‘?nnfBt§r&?é%36%°8Itrn5n%n‘ °*‘
I E
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff} ‘ Case Number( Q ·— O 2 ·~ fz;) 5 §9
v. E
efendant. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
A In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3l42(f), a detention hearing was held on é , 200Q
Defendant was present, represented by his attorney ` . . The United States was re esented by
Assistant U.S. Attorney ( I . A
PART I. PRESUMPTIONS APPLICABLE i
I I The defendant is charged with an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 3 l42(f)(l) and the defendant has been g
convicted of a prior offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 3 142(f)( 1) while on release pending trial for a federal, state or local
offense, and a period of not more than five (5) years has elapsed since the date of conviction or the release ofthe person I
from imprisonment, whichever is later. l
This establishes a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the 4
safety of any other person and the community. _ Q
I I There is probable cause based upon (the indictment) (the facts found in Part IV below) to believe that the
defendant has committed an offense _ P"
· A. - ____ for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed 8% . O1 et
seq., § 951 et seq., or § 955a et seq., OR It _
B. ___ under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c): use of a firearm dining the commission of a felony. ‘ .
R This establishes a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions wil$lfPa.@naplgU%ssme the *-
appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community. GL Qg_._,__g U I
#@0 presumption applies. lL'O1'?TI1L{§i,i;?,; _.i_ ·
PART II. BUTTAL on PRESUMPTIONS, IF APPLICABLE N I
I I The defendant has not come forward with any evidence to rebut the applicable presumption[s], land he theibfore I
will be ordered detained. l !
I I The defendant has come forward with evidence to rebut the applicable presumption[s] to wit: E
Thus, the burden of proof shifts back to the United States. l P
‘ PART IH. Pnoos (WHERE PREsuIvIPTIoNs REBUTTED on INAPPLICABLE) J
»9%f"l` he United States has proved to a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of _
conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required, AND! OR !
I I The United States has proved by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions
will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community. I
PART IV. WRITTEN Frunnvcs or FACT AND STATEMENT os REASONS non DETENTIoN
All/·The Court has taken into a count the factors s t out in 18, U.S.C. § 3142 g) and all of the information submitted Q
at hearing and finds as follow; .4; Q ymjrac .- llrrrra A- it ..rLQ..£. 4 4 S' T i » · L6 E
.._· A Annan! » I.; i n A P.; A · ` .ns.nII.n r·· I I »· I , [
I I Defendant, his attorney, and the AUSA have waived I `tten dings. Am ;/ · _ ' ,/ ` , · .
PART V. DIRECTIONS REGARDING DETENTIoN $01 fcvdura MFE; r v 4 {
The defendant is committed to the custody ofthe Attorney 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 ofthe United States or on the request of an attorney for the Government, the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall
deliver the defendant to the United States Marshal for the p f an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.
ay kg
-5 I PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL
United States Magistrate Judge ;
.,··/ ¤
AUsA __,L/AGTY VR yrs ___
I
l

Case 5:07-mj-70339-MRGD

Document 5

Filed 09/03/2008

Page 1 of 1