Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :08-cr-00127-GIVIS Document 8 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 1 of 1
% AO 472 (Rev. 12/03) Order of Detention Pending Trial
District of DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
JORGE MEJIAS, Case Number: 08-125-M
Dejimdom
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3 l42(1°), 6 detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following facts require the
detention of the defendant pending trial in this case.
Part l——Findings of Fact
Q (I) The defendant is charged with an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 3l42(f)(l) and has been convicted of a Q federal offense Q state
or local offense that would have been a federal offense if a circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had existed - that is
Q a crime of violence as defined in IS U.S.C. § 3l56(a)(4).
Q an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death.
Q an offense for which a maximum temi of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in
·•»
Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3 I 42(f)(l)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
Q (2) The offense described in finding (I) was committed while the defendant was on release pending trial for a federal, state or local offense.
Q (3) A period of not more than five years has elapsed since the Q date of conviction Q release ofthe defendant from imprisonment
for the offense described in finding (I).
Q (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 rebuttecl this presumption.
Alternative Findings (A)
Q (1) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
Q for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in .
Q under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Q (2) The defendant has not reburted the presumption established by finding I that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure
the appearance ofthe defendant as required and the safety ofthe community.
Alternative Findings (B)
X (I) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear.
Q (2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the community.
Part ll—Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
I find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by I:] clear and convincing evidence X a prepon-
derance of the evidence that
The Defendant waived his right to a detention hearing. Based on the report ofthe Probation Office, and other information before the Court —
including the affidavit supporting the complaint against Defendant for illegal re-entry into the U.S., which sets out that Defendant has been
previously deported — the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure that the
Defendant would appear for all Court events in this matter.
Part IIl—-—Directions Regarding Detention
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 of the United States or on request of an attorney for the
Government, the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall deliver the defendant o the United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance
in connection with a court proceeding. V
JULY 29T", 2008 I
Date Signature of Judge
Hon. Leonard P. Stark
Name and Title of Judge
*Insert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 erseq.); (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 1:08-cr-00127-GMS

Document 8

Filed 07/29/2008

Page 1 of 1