Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :08-cr-00044-SLR Document 8 Filed 02/21 /2008 Page 1 of 2
AO 472 (Rev. l2t’tl3) Orderol`Detention Pending Trial
District of DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
BRYANT K. ERVTN, Case Number: 08-45-M
Dejiznrtottt
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, IS U.S.C. § 3 l42(t), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following facts require the
detention of the defendant pending trial in this case.
Pa rt I-Findings of Fact
Q tl) The defendant is charged with an offense described in IS 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 ifa circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had existed - that is
Q a crime ofviolenee 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 term of imprisonment of ten 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 IS U.S.C.
§ 3 l42(l’)( 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 ofconviction Q release ofthe defendant fiom imprisonment
for the offense described in finding (I).
Q (4) Findings Nos. (I), (2) and (3) establish a rebuttablc 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)
Q ( I I There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
Q lor which a maximum term ofimprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in _ .
Q under IS USC. § 924(e).
Q (2) The defendant has not rcbutted the presumption established by finding I that no condition or combination ofconditions will reasonably assure
the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety ofthe community.
Alternative Findings (B)
Q (I) There is a serious risk that thc defendant will not appear.
X (2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the community.
Part !I——Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
I lind that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by X clear and convincing evidence I] a prepon-
tlerance ofthe evidence that
Based on the affidavit ofprobable cause, the report ofthe Probation Office, and other information provided to the Court during the preliminary
and detention hearings. the Court finds clear and convincing evidence that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure the safety of the
cointnunity between now and the time ofthe Defendants trial.
The Court further linds, however, that the government has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that there are no combination
of conditions that could reasonably assure 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 of the offense: the Defendant is accused of being a felon in possession ofa firearm. An individual with whom he was
residing advised law enforcement that the Defendant had a firearm in the residence. Pursuant to a search ofthe residence, a firearm (a black
and chrome Cobra model GA-32 semi-automatic .32 caliber) was retrieved. Later, the Defendant gave a statement in which he admitted that he
possessed the firearm, though he claimed he was holding it for someone else.
the vt eight of the evidence; is strong. In addition to the individual with whom the Defendant was residing stating that the Defendant possessed a
lircarm In the residence, the Defendant admitted that the firearm subsequently retrieved from the residence was possessed by him. There is no
dispute that this iirearm had previously traveled in interstate commerce or that the Defendant was convicted in l999 in Superior Court for New
Castle County ofthe felony offense ofpossession ofa firearm during the commission ofa felony.

Case 1 :08-cr-00044-SLR Document 8 Filed 02/21 /2008 Page 2 of 2
%·, AD 472 (Rev. |2!03) Order of Detention Pending Trial
the historv and characteristics of the Defendant: the Defendant’s criminal history is marked by the single felony conviction noted above, which
apparently related to a cariacking. The remainder ofthe Dcfcndant`s adult convictions consist of driving-related offenses: 3 convictions
between 200l and 2006 for, among other things, following a motor vehicle too closely, three driving while suspended offenses, and a failure to
report an accident; another charge of driving while suspended in 2007 remains pending. Also pending are charges relating to alleged domestic
violence, including offensive touching and terroristic threatening. Relatedly, aprotection from abuse order was issued against the Defendant
in February 2008, The Court is concerned about all ofthe foregoing indications ofthe Defendant’s violent history and/or potential for
violence. On the other hand, the Defendant has long-term ties to the community, has some work history, has no outstanding warrants or
capiases. and has the support of members of his family and community, who appeared at the detention hearing.
the nature and seriousness ofthe danger to the communig that would be posed by the Defendant’s release: as a felon in possession of a firearm -
rvlrose previous felony offense appears to have been violent, who has a demonstrated unwillingness to follow rules governing operation of
motor vehicles, and who faces open charges ofdomestic violence - thc Court believes the Defendant would pose a danger to the community if
released.
Part IIl—Directi0ns 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 ofa eourt of the United States or on request of an attorney for the
Govcrnrrrcrrt. the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall deliver thc defendant to th Unite States marshal for the purpose ofan appearance
in connection nitlr a court proceeding. Q/\I
2/2 l @008 A
Date Signature 0 Judge
Leonard P. Stark U.S. Magistrate
Nome and Title of Judge
flnscrt as applicable: {a) Controlled Substances Act. (2l U.S.C. § S0! et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (2l U.S.C. § 95l
er seq.); or (c) Section i ofAct of Sept. 15, 1980 (2l U.S.C. § 955a).

Case 1:08-cr-00044-SLR

Document 8

Filed 02/21/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-cr-00044-SLR

Document 8

Filed 02/21/2008

Page 2 of 2