Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :08-cr-00062-SLR Document 8 Filed 04/O1 /2008 Page 1 of 2
Q AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial

District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDE OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Kenneth Young Case O J
Defendant M
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3l42(f), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following facts require the
detention of the defendant pending trial in this ease.
Part I—Findings of Fact
Q (I) The defendant is charged with an offense described in IB U.S.C. § 3142(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 18 U.S.C. § 3156(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 of ten years or more is prescribed in
i
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 (1) 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 of the 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)
(1) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
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 rebutted the presumption cstablished by finding 1 that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure
the appearance of thc defendant as required and the safety ofthe community.
Alternative Findings (B)
X (1) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear.
X (2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the community. _ _ ( _ _:X____L g
Defendant is char e with felon in ossession of a firearm in violation of 18 USC · 922 ; and 924 a for which r ob ble au w Q ound
as aresultofa relimin hearin . _ l I
(_
KQ
_] ' ' Ni
. *
Part II——Written Statement of Reasons for Detention ` Us DIS RICT COURT '
I find that the credible testimony and infomiation submitted at the hearing establishes by X clear and onvincin Wdlziiizgf Bti i on-
derance of the evidence: In analyzing the factors in IS USC § 3l42(g), the court finds that there are no conditions or combination thereof that will
reasonably assure defendant’s appearance as required and the safety of the cotnmunity. Therefore, detention is warranted for thc following reasons:
Nature ofthe Offense: The offense falls within the more serious category, defendant, having been convicted of prior felonies was in possession of
a weapon.
Strength of the Evidence: A witness for the govemment, testified consistent with his affidavit made in support of the criminal complaint. As a
result, he identified defendant as the individual who admitted to and was observed with a firearm.
Characteristics of Defendant: Although defendant is a life long resident of DE and recently laid off from his employment which he has held since
February 2007, and has a fairly stable residence, his criminal history is very problematic. As a juvenile, he was found guilty of possession of a
narcotic substance with intent to deliver. this conviction occurred at age 16 years. In January 2003, he entered a guilty plea to possession of a
narcotic schcduled I substance which had been pled down from numerous other offenses. In June 2003, he pled guilty to assault 2d which involved
hitting a man in the head with a bottle for failing to pay a dnig debt. The remaining drug and weapons charges were dismissed for that plea. For
that offcnse he was found in VOP in May 2004, October 2005 and March 2006. The VOP in May 2004 resulted from his conviction for possession
widi intent to deliver a narcotic schedule ll substance. Again because of that plea, thc companion drug offenses were dismissed. He was found in
VOP for that offense on February 2005, May 2005 and March 2006. At the time of his arrest, defendant had pending as of November 2007 (while
he was employed) possession of MJ and possession with intent to deliver. Despite his stability of employment and residence, neither has resulted
in a subsiding in det`endant’s drug history which raises the suspicion of why he felt compelled or necded to possess a firearm
He has a number of FTAs for Aldcmian’s Coun, IP Court 20 and the Superior Court.

Case 1 :08-cr-00062-SLR Document 8 Filed 04/O1 /2008 Page 2 of 2
Q AO 472 (Rev. 3/S6) Order of Detengon Pending Trial
*Insen as appl1caEIe: (a) Controlled Substances Aet (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 0i`Act of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955:1).

Case 1:08-cr-00062-SLR

Document 8

Filed 04/01/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-cr-00062-SLR

Document 8

Filed 04/01/2008

Page 2 of 2