Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :O7—cr-00025-JJF Document 9 Filed O3/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
% AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OE AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Robert Cottman Case C p\D"jl...2_6' .. U rjpp
Defendant
In 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)(1) 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 ofviolence 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
>l<
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.
§ 3l42(f)(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 five 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 End 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 of imprisonment 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 1 that no condition or combination ofconditions will reasonably assure
the appearance ofthe defendant as required and the safety ofthe community.
Alternative Findings (B)
X (1) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear.
X (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 of the evidence: The court finds that there are no conditions or combination thereof that will reasonably assure defendant’s appearance as
required and the safety ofthe community for the following reasons:
1. The evidence against defendant is substantial. Vlfhen the vehicle in which defendant was located was stopped, defendant gave a fictitious name
and planned to produce a fictitious ID ofBryant or Brian Cottman. This shows that defendant was aware of outstanding capiases including a warrant
for VOP. The search of defendant produced a large amount of currency. A subsequent administrative search of defendant’s home produced two
weapons and boxes of ammo for those weapons. Defendant claims that he found all in an alley near his home and was keeping them for protection
for his mother. Interestingly, some ofthe weapons and ammo were found under a mattress.
2. Defendant recently started employment after his disability stopped. A letter was received connrming that he has been working in his own
business and gets referrals from Flannigan & Sons for skilled labor work..
3. Essentially defendant admitted to having the weapons and ammo. At the time of his arrest, he was on state supervision.
4. Defendant has 4 children, and although it is claimed that he is a loving father and is there for his kids, the state has been pursuing him for failure
to support since it has been the state who has provided support for the children while defendant is on disability.
5. defendant has a significant criminal history beginning in 1991 with juvenile delinquency findings. IN 1997 he_w;as_foun_d_gtglity ofppogesgiqn _ ___,
with intent to deliver and in 2003 for possession of drug paraphernalia. In 2005 he was found guilty of criminafimpersonat-ion andjresisting grest I
and was found in VOP for that charge. At the time of his arrest, there were 3 outstanding capiases for failure to appear in Family Court, @_i_lyr§{tp__
appear at a probation sentencing and another failure to appear in Family Court- these three capiase were issued in 200(T--In-additionihi-s past historix
shows that defendant has 19 capiases for failure to appear in various court in DE for various offenses — not all wjere related tpsfines or financial,
appearance reasons. ] g l`·`.··'I‘l-I " “· ·"`""}
1 .
{ 5; ·- `_`. `I ,f_ lIr 1
I !‘, _ ,_ rum A- _-__-lj

Case 1 :O7—cr-00025-JJF Document 9 Filed O3/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
Q AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Part III—Directi0ns Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the custody ofthe 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 attorney for the
Government, the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall deliver the defend he United States marshal for the purpose ofan appearance in
connection with a court proceeding. _ . ) -_
Mafch 6: 2007 An-;. — ..
Date . Signazttrc u I cial O user
Mary Pat Thynge, Magistrate Judge
Name and Title 0f./udicial Ojicer
*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 0fAct ofSept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).