Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :08-cr-00102-JJF Document 8 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 1 of 2
% AO 472 (Rev. I2/03) Order of Detention Pending Trial
District of DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
DWAYNE SKINNER, Case Number: 08—l03-M
Defendant
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3I42(f`). a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following facts require the
detention ofthe defendant pending trial in this case.
Part I—Findings of Fact
Q (I) The defendant is charged with an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 3I42(f)(l) and has been convicted ofa 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 18 U.S.C. § 3 I56(a)(4).
Q an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death.
Q an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment often years or more is prescribed in
·•=
Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted oftwo or more prior federal offenses described in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3 I42(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 tive years has elapsed since the Q date of conviction Q release ofthe defendant from imprisonment
for the offense described in finding (1).
Q (4) Findings Nos. (I), (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 (A)
X (I) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
X for which a maximum term ofimprisonment often years or more is prescribed in 2l USC g 841 .
Q under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
X (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding I 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 (B)
Q (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 Il——Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
[I clear and convincing evidence I;] aprepon-
derance of the evidence that
Based on the infomation before the Court, including that provided by the probation office as well as the parties by proffer during the detention
hearing, and the affidavit supporting the complaint and the evidence elicited during the preliminary hearing, the Court finds that the Defendant has
failed to rebut the statutory presumption that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure the safety of thc community between now and
the time oftrial and that the Defendant would appear for all Court events in this matter.
The Court has reached these conclusions based on the following findings and for the following reasons:
the nature and circumstances ofthe offense: the Defendant is accused of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession of a
firearm by a previously-convicted felon. On June I2, 2008, as law enforcement officers were intending to execute a search warrant on the
Defendant’s residence, they observed the Defendant in the front passenger side ofa vehicle. Officers saw the Defendant manipulate an object
in his hands and then reach his hand in a downward motion toward the floorboard between his front passenger seat and the front passenger door
ofthe vehicle. Upon opening the front passenger door, an officer immediately identified on the floorboard between the front passenger door
and the front passenger seat a Taurus PT-22 loaded firearm. In the Dcfendant’s pocket officers found 22 bags of crack cocaine with a total
gross weight of 2.2 grams. The Defendant stated that the crack cocaine discovered in his pocket was intended for sale. He further stated that he
knew the firearm was in the vehicle, but that it belonged to one ofthe two other people who had been in the vehicle with him. He also said that
he had possessed that firearm on an earlier date. The firearm was manufactured outside of Delaware and necessarily traveled in interstate
commerce prior to June I2, 2008. The Defendant has at least one prior felony conviction, as noted below.
the weight ofthe evidence: there is at least probable cause established for both charged offenses.

Case 1 :08-cr-00102-JJF Document 8 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 2 of 2
sa AO 472 (Rev. 12/03) Order of Detention Pending Trial
the histog and characteristics of the Defendant: the Defendant has an extensive criminal history, including convictions in July 2006 for possession
of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, possession with intent to deliver a schedule Il controlled substance, and maintaining a dwelling for
keeping controlled substances. He is presently the subject of a protection from abuse order relating, in part, to allegations involving him and
two firearms. His record further shows five traffic offense related capiases and seven criminal offense related capiases, including five failure to
appear capiases on his criminal record. While the Defendant is a lifelong resident of Delaware, has children here, has the support of family
members, and is a severe diabetic, the Defendant’s history and characteristics - along with the other factors the Court must consider — do not
rebut the presumption of detetion with respect to either risk of non-appearance or danger to the community.
the nature and seriousness ofthe danger to the communig that would be posed by the Defendant’s release: prior convicted felons possessing
firearms to use in furtherance of distributing illegal drugs pose a substantial danger to the community.
Part lIl—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 attomey for the
Government, the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall deliver the defend tto the U ited States marshal for the purpose of an appearance
in connection with a court proceeding. (5
JUNE 18TH, 2008 /Q/’ '
Date Signature cf Judge
Hon. Leonard P. Stark
Name and Title of Judge
*Insert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (2l U.S.C. § 80] et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (2l U.S.C. § 951
erseq.); or (c) Section 1 ofAct of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a),

Case 1:08-cr-00102-JJF

Document 8

Filed 06/18/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-cr-00102-JJF

Document 8

Filed 06/18/2008

Page 2 of 2