Free Order of Detention - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

A wo ( UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT s
.. CCIC N CCCCC -.--..._-_--_-.- DDUIIIU UUUI o r IIDUI 9. • . I - - or r I IIIU N IUDUUIU I i UUUUU IIII r
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A l
v. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
A Likishe J. Kelly Case Number: QR 02-UQ611-OQ2-PHX-·SB§ ‘
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(U. a detention hearing has been held. 1 conclude that the following facts
BFG established: (Check one or both, as applicable.) -
K by clear and convincing evidence thendefendant is a danger to the community and require the detention of the defendant
pending trial in this case.
I;] by a preponderance of the evidence the defendant is a flight risk and require the detention of the defendant pending trial in
this case. .
PART I -- FINDINGS OF FACT .
I;-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 _ - ‘
_ _ D a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4).
m an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death.
EI an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment often years or more is prescribed in 1

El a felony that was committed after thedefendant had been convicted of two or more prior federai 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 federat,
state or local offense. _
I:] (3) A period of not more than five years has elapsed since the (date of c0nviction)(release of the defendant from
imprisonment) for the offense described in finding 1. . ‘ -
I:] (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 . _
EI (1) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
D for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in - 2
EI under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) _
[II (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
E (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.
. M (2) No condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of others and the community.
I] (3) There is a serious risk that the defendant will (obstruct or attempt to obstructjustice) (threaten, injure, or intimidate
a prospective witness or juror). .
El in
-
insert 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
ic) Section 1 of Act of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a). . _ _
zlrisert 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
ici section 1 or Act or Sept. 15, 1sao (21 u.s.c. 5 955a). - .-
Case 2:O2—cr—OO611—SFtB Document 95 Filed O 9/O8/2005 Page 1 of 3

PART il -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION
(Check one or both, as applicable. )
MK (1) I find that the credible testimony and information" submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and conv cing
eviggnce s to danger that: ,_ - _ _ .
' ·';l; BA ~ ' L" il A cx °’Q1 I`L• 19 S " 'I
-···- ·•.._.· ·{· "!EK%!$1'&L$.!1'!.[§t . - -

E (2) I find that a preponderance of the evidence as to risk of flight that:
_ E] The defendant has no significant contacts in the District of Arizona. l
D The defendant has no resources in the United States from which he/she might make a bond reasonably calculated
to assure hisfher future appearance. ‘
U The defendant has a prior criminal history. ‘
D There is a record of prior failure to appear in court as ordered.
I] 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 ‘ ‘ - .;
¤ The defendant does not dispute the infomation contained in the Pretrial Services Report, except:

D in addition: ‘ .


The Court incorporates by reference the findings of the Pretrial Services Agency which were reviewed by the Court at the T
time of the hearing in this matter. -
’ "The rules concerning admissiblllty of evidence in criminai trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the [detention] hearlngf
18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) for the factors to be taken Into account.
Page 2 of 3
Case 2:O2—cr—OO611-SRB Document 95 Filed O9/O8/2005 Page 2 of 3 ·

PART Ill -- DIRECTIONS REGARDING DETENTION · - _ I -
The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or hislher designated representative for confinement in
a corrections facility separate, tothe extent practicable, from persons awaiting or sewing sentences or being held in custody pending I
` appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense counset. On order of e 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 Court, it is counsel'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 counsel‘s responsibility to notify Pretrial
Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing before the District Court to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to intenriew and
investigate the potential third party custodian.
DATE: September 6, 2005 · ` 1 _ `
_ _ _ _ g VIRQINIA A. MATHiS
` United States Ma`gistrateJudge
Page 3 of 3 _
_ Case 2:O2—cr—OO611-SRB Document 95 Filed O9/O8/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:02-cr-00611-SRB

Document 95

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cr-00611-SRB

Document 95

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cr-00611-SRB

Document 95

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 3 of 3