Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :08-mj-00057-UNA Document 10 Filed O3/24/2008 Page 1 of 2
tts AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Thomas Stephen Pendleton Case O 5 _ 6 T.}- A/\
Defendant
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3 I42(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 (1) The defendant is charged with an offense described in I8 U.S.C. § 3 l42(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 ofviolence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3I56(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
U
Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in IS U.S.C. _ __
_ § 3142(f)(I)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses. I
Q (2) The offense described in finding (1) was committed while the defendant was on release pcnding 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 offcnsc described in finding (1 ). _ __
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. l further find that the defendant has not rebutted this presumption.
Alternative Findings (A)
_ (I) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
I for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in .
. Q under IS U.S.C. § 924(e).
Q - (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 corrmiunity.
Alternative Findings (B) [" F ‘ I" " "'“‘—····"···T~—-·’
(1) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear. i ` I I.
(2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the community.

. ..». DFSIFQICI COURT J
L...... ....-.,:=="‘,‘ " ‘ i — __
Part II——Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
I find that the credible testimony and in.fom1ation submitted at the hearing establishes by X clear and convincing evidence X a prepon-
derance ofthe evidence: Defendant did not oppose detention. IN addition, based on the factors under § 3142 and the evidence presented during
the preliminary heating, the court finds that defendant is both a risk of flight and danger to the community.
Nature ofthe offense: Defendant is charged with failing to register as a sex offender under the Adam Walsh Act. Defendant’s charge falls under
the serious nature in particular in light ofthe conduct to avoid registering in any jurisdiction.
Strength of the evidence against defendant: Defendant clearly chose DE to allegedly list as his residence since he did his own legal research and
concluded because of the dates of his sexual abuse convictions in the US (in NJ and Michigan) all pre- l994, he did not have to register under De
law, This supports that he was told after his return from the sexual abuse conviction of minors (ages 8 and 13) in Latvia, that he ws advised by `
his then supervising officer from DC (where he had resided), that he had to confer with the Attomey GcncraI’s Office of the state where he planned
to reside. He represented to that officer that he planned to reside in DE. He also represented after his deportation from Germany after serving a
sentence for a sexual abuse against a minor conviction in Germany on a US passport application that he resided in DE (he also used a DE license as
identification). Further he checked with the American Embassy regarding whether the German conviction would place him under the three strike
rule. Although he represents DE as his residence, the evidence shows that he has only picked up mail from that location and apparently does not .
have a key for access. (confirmed by the actual resident of that address). He has spent more time since his deportation from Gennany in January .
2008 in CA and PA at youth hostels and friends homes. Further, he has kept personalty for his intended retum to a friend’s home in PA. He
intentionally has attempted to circumvent the Federal law and insufficient evidence to support the affirmative defenses under IS USC § 2250 was
presented. The strength of the evidence against defendant is substantial and the court incorporates herein by reference the sworn affidavit of William
David (Govemment’s Exhibit I) as proof of the strength of the evidence. the court places little or no value on the defense raised that the government
only showed that defendant did not register in DE, PA and CA and gave no evidence on the remaining 47 states. However, it was defendant who
swom via his application for a passport that his residence was DE!

- Case 1 :08-mj-00057-UNA Document 10 Filed O3/24/2008 Page 2 of 2
% AO 472 (Rev. 3/B6) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Defendant’s Characteristics: defendant is a serial sexual predator. Beginning in 1981 and continuing into 2005-2006, defendant was convicted of 4
separate sexual offenses against minors in NJ, Michigan, Latvia and Germany. His criminal history spans two states and three countries. In fact
because of treaties that Germany has with other European countries, he is now not allowed to travel in those eountries. He planned to travel outside
the US to Prague when he was arrested. He has traveled to various states (CA, PA and Illinois) as well as outside the US since his return in January.
He is clearly a risk of flight and serious danger to the community.
Part IH—Directions Regarding Detention
The defendant is cornrnitted to the custody of the Attomey 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 of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to_ ited States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in
connection with a court proceeding. /
February 14, 200B V .
Date Signature of fa! Ojicer
Mary Pat Thynge, Magistrate Judge
Name and Title of Judicial Oficer
"‘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 (c) Section 1 ofAct of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).

Case 1:08-mj-00057-UNA

Document 10

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-mj-00057-UNA

Document 10

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 2 of 2