AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention l’ending Trial
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Luis Montano—Rios Case ,22 I
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, l8 U.S.C. § 3 l42(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 (1) The defendant is charged with an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 3l42(f`)(I) and has been convicted ofa Q federal offense Q state
or local offense that would have been a federal offense ii`a circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had existed that is
Q a crime of violence as defined in IS U.S.C. § 3 l56(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 of two or more prior federal offenses described in l8 U.S.C.
§ 3 l42(f)(l)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
Q (2) The offense described in Ending (1) was committed while the defendant was on release pending trial for a federal, state or local offense.
Q (3) A period ofnot more than five years has elapsed since the Q date of conviction Q release ofthe defendant from imprisonment
for the offense described ip finding (I).
Q (4) Findings Nos. (I), (2) and (3) establish a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination ofconditions 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 ofimprisonment often years or more is prescribed in .
Q under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Q (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding l that no condition or combination ofconditions will reasonably assure
the appearance ofthe defendant as required and the safety ofthe community.
Alternative Findings (B)
(l) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear]
(2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the community.
Part II——Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
I find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and convincing evidence a prepon-
derance ofthe evidence: Defendant did not oppose the government’s motion for detention at the present time, but reserved the right to do so in the
future which was granted. Defendant is charged with illegal re-entry into the US. Evidence shows that he was previously deported on three
occassions. The evidence against defendant for this offense is very strong. Most ofthe charges or convictions against him beginning in 2000 are for
falsely using the name and/or date of birth of another, driving offenses including numerous license violations. providing an officer with a false
name, driving without a valid license with a number ofthese offenses occurring in Minnesota and Illinois. Beginning in 2006, similar type charges
started in DE within a few months after he was last deported in 2005. For the DE charges he accumulated 4 FTA. He is clearly a risk of non-
,. . ‘ . i; _
Case 1 :07-cr-00164-SLR Document 7 Filed 1 1/20/2007 Page 2 of 2
%i AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Part III——Directi0ns Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the custody ofthe Attorney General or his designated representative for continement 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 defendant to the Unite `tates marshal for the purpose of an appearance in
connection with a court proceeding. ./·‘ #"
November 19, 2007 / _ l
Date —»- 'Sigmzlure ofJi¢r/[cial Offic r
ay Pat Thynge, Magistrate Judge
Name and Title 0fJudici
seq.); or (c) Section 1 ofActofSept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2