Filed: Apr. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 06, 2017
Summary: FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION. MICHAEL J. WATANABE , Magistrate Judge . This matter was before the court for detention hearing on April 6, 2017. The court has taken judicial notice of the court's file and the pretrial services memorandum dated April 5, 2017. The defendant is not contesting detention. The court now being fully informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and order for detention. In order to sustain a motion for
Summary: FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION. MICHAEL J. WATANABE , Magistrate Judge . This matter was before the court for detention hearing on April 6, 2017. The court has taken judicial notice of the court's file and the pretrial services memorandum dated April 5, 2017. The defendant is not contesting detention. The court now being fully informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and order for detention. In order to sustain a motion for d..
More
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION.
MICHAEL J. WATANABE, Magistrate Judge.
This matter was before the court for detention hearing on April 6, 2017. The court has taken judicial notice of the court's file and the pretrial services memorandum dated April 5, 2017. The defendant is not contesting detention. The court now being fully informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and order for detention.
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:
(1) [t]he nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug;
(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including —
(A) the person's character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and
(B) whether at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State or local law; and
(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release.
In making my findings of fact, I have taken judicial notice of the information set forth in the Pretrial Investigation Memorandum dated April 5, 2017 and the entire court file. Weighing the statutory factors set forth in the Bail Reform Act, I find the following:
First, I find that the defendant has been charged in the Indictment Title 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 — Distribution of 500 Grams or More of a Mixture and Substance Containing a Detectable Amount of Methamphetamine, a Schedule II Controlled Substance, and Intentionally did Aid, Abet, Counsel, Command, Induce and Procure the Same.
Second, I find that probable cause exists that the defendant committed the charged offense based upon the Indictment.
Third, I find that on March 17, 2017, the defendant was sentenced in Denver County District Court, Case Number 17-CR-10037, to two (2) years Colorado Department of Corrections, with fifty-one (51) days credit for time served, subsequent to his conviction for Attempted Escape — Direct Community Corrections/Intensive Supervision Parole (felony). This sentence is concurrent with the sentence imposed in Denver County District Court, Case Number 13-CR-4218.
On that same date, the defendant's original sentence was vacated and he was resentenced to eighteen (18) months Colorado Department of Corrections, with one hundred forty-four (144) days credit for time served, in Denver County District Court, Case Number 13-CR-4218. The defendant was originally sentenced in this case for Controlled Substance — Possess Ketamine — 4 Grams or Less (felony), on March 3, 2014, to 18 eighteen (18) months direct sentence to community corrections with seven (7) days credit for time served.
The defendant's estimated parole eligibility date is February 7, 2018. His estimated mandatory release date is February 7, 2019. The defendant is not contesting detention.
I further find, by a preponderance of evidence, that there is no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant. Accordingly, I order defendant detained without bond.
