Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cr—00060-GIVIS Document 20 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 1 ot 2


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
David Levi Hancock Case C , QQ , ( _, Q M5
Defendant
ln accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(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. § 3142(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 of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4).
Q an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death.
Q an offense for which a maximum term ofimprisonment 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 18 U.S.C.
§ 3 142(t)(1)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
Q (2) The offense described in finding (1) 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 of conviction Q release ofthe defendant from imprisonment
for the offense 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. I further find that the defendant has not rebutted this presumption.
Alternative Findings (A)
X (1) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
X for which a maximum term ofimprisonment often years or more is prescribed in 21 USC §§ 841, 846 .
. Q under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
X (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding 1 that no condition or combination ofconditions will reasonably assure
the appearance ofthe defendant as required and the safety ofthe community.
· Alternative Findings (B)
(1) 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 X clear and convincing evidence X a prepon-
derance ofthe evidence: Defendant was ordered detained on the following bases:
1. the serious nature ofthe charges against which involved drugs, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 500 gr of cocaine.
2. The evidence against defendant is strong. He was present at a scheduled delivery of 1 kilogram of cocaine and was identified as the buyer.
Further, defendant admitted to his involvement in the conspiracy by claiming that he planned to purchase the cocaine.
3. Nature and characteristics of defendant: defendant attempted to flee on foot when the police attempted to arrest hin. Although defendant made the
argument that the detention hearing was unfair because he had been indicted before the scheduled preliminary hearing, there was no attempt on
defendant’s part to present evidence contrary to the evidence submitted by the government regarding defendant’s involvement. Although defendant
has a family, lived in Delaware all his lifeand has a form of employment (legal gambling), all the arguments presented by the defense only
addressed the issue of risk of flight. No argument was presented regarding danger to the community. Defendant’s past criminal history shows that he
is no stranger to the criminal justice system having been convicted of trafficking in cocaine in 1996 for which he was VOP in 2000; convicted in
1996 of conspiracy in relation to a drug offense and found VOP in 200 and 2004; convicted ofpossession ofa narcotic controlled substance within
1000 feet ofa school and distribution within 300 feet ofa park in 2000 (while he was on probation for the above offenses which lead to his VOP).
On this charge he was found VOP in 2001 and 3 times within 3 months in 2004. Defendant has pending a r$:srs rg ‘.“T
offense occurred with defendant was on state probation. Further defendant is a daily user ofmarijuana. El_ j l
i l ‘ E
. 1 _ !
; I l-/lll 1/ Etllll I g
. 5 ’
1 l_.__.-__-.___ ___-. .-.1
1 ·j¥|ST? ; i· '.:¥~’f_'i DF. -’·`-»‘¤.+<= 1

Case 1 :07-cr—00060-GIVIS Document 20 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
Part III—Directions 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 of a court of the United States or on request of an attomey for the
Govemment, the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall deliver the defendantte- United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in
connection with a court proceeding.
_/
May 17, 2007 V ' . . ·
Date Signature Ofjlldr z` 1 Meer
Mary Pat Thynge, . agistrate Judge
Name and T ztle 0fJ1¢d1c!tzl Omuer
*1nsert 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 ez
seq.); or (c) Section 1 ofAct ofSept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).