Free Order of Detention - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

\
rr \'
FILE) [
WO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR ——HEmm —-·—-
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA "“ l -.
APR 0 4 2007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ` _
v. ORDER OF DETEN O ’ ;r_=»·;_9» `-is is £t'* "‘*
. ~~. i •. · inc tf
_ _ BY _______ DEPUTY
James Brian Nardi Case Number: CR 01-00 - • - · - E -
ln accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following facts
are established: (Check one or both, as applicable.)
D by clear and convincing evidence the defendant is a danger to the community and require the detention of the defendant
pending trial in this case.
IE by a preponderance of the evidence the defendant is a serious flight risk and require the detention ofthe defendant pending
trial in this case.
PART I -- FINDINGS OF FACT
I:] (1) The defendant has been convicted of a (federal offense)(state or local offense that would have been a federal
offense if a circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had existed) that is
I;] a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4).
E EI an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death.
El an offense for which a maximum term cf imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in 1
I:] a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses
described in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
[I (2) The offense described in finding 1 was committed while the defendant was on release pending trial for a federal,
state or local offense.
D (3) A period of not more than five years has elapsed since the (date of ccnviction)(reIease of the defendant from
imprisonment) for the offense described in finding 1.
EI (4) Findings Nos. (1), (2) and (3) establish a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the safety of (an)other person(s) and the community. I further find that the defendant has not
rebutted this presumption.
Alternative Findings
I] (1) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
EI for which a maximum term of imprisonment often years or more is prescribed in 2
EI under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
EI (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding 1 that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community.
Alternative Findings ‘
EI (1) There is a serious risk that the defendant will flee; no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure
the appearance of the defendant as required.
EI (2) No condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of others and the community. .
E (3) There is a serious risk that the defendant will (obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice) (threaten, injure, or intimidate
a prospective wi ness or juror).
E _) -:... Ain L•'.l.L.L gt .’ J 4. --IL. A :4..lAA 1* 4 {qi |.._.,. 2- A' ‘
\/lug mggg gk M`.; QE 5
‘lnsert as appiicablez (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 931 et seq.); or
(c) Section 1 of Act of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).
zlnsert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 951 et seq.); or
(c) Section 1 of Act of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).
Case 2:01 —cr—0001 1-SRB Document 66 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 1 of 3

4 ll
" PART ll -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION
(Check one or both, as applicable.)
EI (1) I find that the credible testimony and informationf submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and convincing
evidence as to danger that:
EI (2) ltind that a preponderance of the evidence as to risk of flight that:
D The defendant has no significant contacts in the District of Arizona.
[Z] The defendant has no resources in the United States from which helshe might make a bond reasonably calculated
to assure hislher future appearance.
EI The defendant has a prior criminal history.
EI There is a record of prior failure to appear in court as ordered.
EI The defendant attempted to evade law enforcement contact by fleeing from law enforcement.
I;] The defendant is facing a minimum mandatory of incarceration and a maximum of
EI The defendant does not dispute the information contained inthe Pretrial Services Report, except:
El In addition:
The Court incorporates by reference the tindings of the Pretrial Services Agency which were reviewed by the Court at the
time of the hearing in this matter.
° "The rules conceming admlssibility of evidence in criminal trials dc not apply tc the presentation and consideration of information at the [detention] hearlng."
18 U.S.C. § 3142(D. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) for the factors to be taken into account.
_ Page 2 of 3
Case 2:01 —cr—OOO1 1-SRB Document 66 Filed O4/O4/2007 Page 2 of 3

_ Q
"' ' PART Ill -- DIRECTIONS REGARDING DETENTION
The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or hisfher 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
of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the
defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.
PART IV -- APPEALS AND THIRD PARTY RELEASE
IT IS ORDERED that should an appeal of this detention order be filed with the District Count, it is counsei's responsibility to
deliver a copy of the motion for reviewfreconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing set before the District
Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it is counseI's responsibility to notify Pretrial
Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing before the District Court to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and
investigate the potential third party custodian.
DATE: Agril 4, 2007 E { 2 gh/Vi"-L
MICHELLE H. BURNS
United States Magistrate Judge
l
Page 3 of 3
Case 2:01 —cr—OOO1 1-SRB Document 66 Filed O4/O4/2007 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:01-cr-00011-SRB

Document 66

Filed 04/04/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:01-cr-00011-SRB

Document 66

Filed 04/04/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:01-cr-00011-SRB

Document 66

Filed 04/04/2007

Page 3 of 3