FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION

MICHAEL J. WATANABE, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court for detention hearing on April 10, 2017. The court has taken judicial notice of the court's file and the pretrial services report. In addition, the court has considered the proffers by the defendant and the government.

In order to sustain a motion for detention, the government must establish that (a) there is no condition or combination of conditions which could be imposed in connection with pretrial release that would reasonably insure the defendant's presence for court proceedings; or (b) there is no condition or combination of conditions which could be imposed in connection with pretrial release that would reasonably insure the safety of any other person or the community. The former element must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, while the latter requires proof by clear and convincing evidence.

If there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed an offense which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of over 10 years and is an offense prescribed by the Controlled Substances Act, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community.

The Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), directs the court to consider the following factors in determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person and the community:

The government is requesting detention in this case. In making my findings of fact, I have taken judicial notice of the information set forth in the pretrial services report and the entire court file, and have considered the proffer submitted by the government and defense counsel and the arguments of counsel. Weighing the statutory factors set forth in the Bail Reform Act, I find the following:

First, the defendant has been charged in the criminal complaint with Possession of a Firearm or Ammunition by a Prohibited Person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Second, based upon Magistrate Judge Hegarty's issuance of an arrest warrant for defendant on the criminal complaint, I find probable cause exists as to the above listed charge.

Third, I find that nature of the charge in this case involves the possession of a firearm or ammunition by a previously convicted felon.

Fourth, I find that defendant is unemployed. Defendant's mother lives in Topeka, Kansas and has a long standing drug addiction. Defendant does not know his father's name. Defendant has no assets and he owes $2,000 in outstanding court obligations in Kansas and over $1,000 for burial expenses for his daughter. Defendant has been using illegal controlled substances since age 14. Those controlled substances include Cannabinoids, Cocaine and Methamphetamine. Defendant has acknowledged his current problem with methamphetamine use. In addition, defendant's girlfriend has a concern about defendant's alcohol abuse. Defendant does not possess a valid Colorado Driver's License. The Kansas Department of Motor Vehicles does not reflect a valid Driver's License for defendant.

Fifth, I find that defendant has suffered a juvenile adjudication for battery (misd). Defendant has suffered adult convictions for Driving Without a License (three separate convictions); Driving Under Suspension; Driving Without Insurance; Criminal Use of Weapons; Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon; Interference with City Officers and Employees; Fleeing or Attempting to Elude Police Officer Pursuit (felony); Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon (three separate felony convictions); Disobeying a Lawful Police Order; and Traffic Contraband-Correctional Institution (felony). Defendant has pending traffic offense cases in Topeka, Kansas for speeding; DUS; Window Tint Too Dark; and other traffic offenses.

Sixth, I find that defendant has suffered one prior failure to appear and has absconded twice in the past from custody. Defendant's bond has been revoked on one prior occasion. Defendant has had his parole revoked in the past. There are currently two active warrants for defendant's arrest. Defendant acknowledges his affiliation with the Surenos Gang. Defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the community.

In light of these facts, I find, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendant is both a flight risk and a danger to the community and that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure his presence in court and the safety of the community. Accordingly, I order that the defendant be detained without bond.