Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cr-00019-JJF Document 14 Filed 03/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
®t AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order ofDetention Pending Trial
District of Delaware
all \llTED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Mario Wooding Case _ C\___
Defendant C i
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, I8 U.S.C. § 3 I 42(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 (I) The defendant is charged with an offense described in I8 U.S.C. § 3I42(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 ofviolence as defined in I8 U.S.C. § 3I56(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
>l<
Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in IS U.S.C. ,
§ 3 I42(f)(I)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses,
Q (2) The offense described in finding (I) 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 (I).
Q (4) Findings Nos. (I), (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 (I) 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 2I USC §84l .
X under I8 U.S.C. § 924(c).
EX (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding I that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure
the appearance ofthe defendant as required and the safety ofthe community.
Alternative Findings (B) ·
(I) 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 did not contest detention but reserved the right to oppose his detention in the future which was granted. In
addition, the court finds that there are no conditions or combination there ofthat will reasonably assure defendant’s appearance as required and the
safety ofthe community because;
I. the evidence against defendant is strong
2. Defendant has no stable employment and has not had stable employment for the past I2 months.
3. At the time of his arrest, defendant was on state probation.
4. Defendant’s medical, drug related or health history is unknown, as well as ties to this community and stability of residence.
5. Defendant was convicted as an adult of possession with intent to deliver in 2005. Within a month of his sentencing, he was found in VOP. In
addition, he was found delinquent for resisting arrest/carrying a deadly weapon and possession ofa deadly weapon (handgun) in 2004 and required
to sewe a mandatory sentence at Ferris School and he was found delinquent 2 times for possession with intent to deliver in 2003 and possession with
or ofa non—narcotic twice, also in 2003. He also has a burglary 2“d in 2000 as ajuvenile.
I -. . I
E —--mi.- i ;.. I- Li
l I
. E _ I ’
. I I l
I I I
‘ I ___- . _ ·`·>`I!_'T:T
. II QI T: ·= I
·- . . .-_.___` ____ _____ ll'

Case 1 :07-cr-00019-JJF Document 14 Filed 03/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
® 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 confinement in a corrections facility separate,
to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or sewing 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 defendant to the United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in
connection with a court proceeding. »—) _ i_
I
March 6, 2007 °
Date Signature of Judi O] ·er
Mary Pat Thynge, Magistrate Judge
Name and Title ofjudiciai Oyficer
*1nsert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 ei seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 951 ez
seq.); or (c) Section 1 ofAct of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).