Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cr-00034—Gl\/IS Document 15 Filed 06/24/2005 Page 1 of 2
Q AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Alipio Rodriguez Case Number: C · »- (bm/\
Defendant
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3 l42(f), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following facts require the
detention of the 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. § 3l42(f)(1) and has been convicted of a Q federal offense Q state
or local offense that would have been a federal offense if a circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had existed that is
Q a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3 l56(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 of ten years or more is prescribed in
*
Q a felony that was committed af`ter the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(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 of the 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)
Q (1) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
Q for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten 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 of conditions will reasonably assure
the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the 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 H—Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
I find that the credible testimony and infomtation submitted at the hearing establishes by X clear and convincing evidence X 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 reguired and the safeg of the community for the follovinng reasons:
1. Defendant did not oppose the govemment’s motion for detention at this time, but reserved the right to request a detention hearing in the
Giture which was granted.
2. Defendant is charged with illegal re-entry into the US. Defendant was previously deported on May 9, 2002 due to his conviction (pled guilty)
of criminal possession of a controlled substance in NY state court. His original sentence was three years to life.
3. Infomiation on defendant is at best sketchy. Although he claimed a close contact with his children, the two in the US advised that they have had
very limited contact with their father for a number of years. According to his son, he recently had a call from his father (after his arrest) just "out of
the blue." He could not verify any information regarding his father, including his residence and thought that his father lived in Philadelphia.
4. Defendant could not recall the last name of one of his daughters that live in the Dominican Republic , but still claimed that he maintained contact
with all of his children except one. Defendant has a total of 7 children, with 1 in Spain, 4 in DR and 2 in the US.
5. Defendant claimed that he rented a room in Wilmington, De prior to his arrest on March 5 for trafficking in cocaine, but was unable to provide
information regarding the owner of the home. _
6. Defendant advised that he traveled frequently between the DR and the US since December 2003.
7. In addition to his conviction noted above, defendant, at the time of his arrest on federal charges, was a aiting triagtx sfe gang
trafficking in cocaine and other drug related charges which are scheduled to proceed to trial in September • 005. Def d w b ; d
JUN 2 4 2005
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRlCT OF DELAWARE

l
Case 1 :05-cr-00034—Gl\/IS Document 15 Filed 06/24/2005 Page 2 of 2
\ AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Onder of Detention Pending Trial
by the state for failure to post $280,000 bond. Any release on the federal charge would not afect his failure to make bail on the state charges.
Part IH—Directions 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 atforded a
reasonable oppommity for private consultation with defense counsel. · · > of a co of the United States or on request of an attorney for the
Govermnent, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the de i; · = S ited .= s marshal for the purpose of an appearance
in connection with a court proceeding. {
June 24, 2005 A 4. ..
one 7 »m»fJur1r¤1 1
‘ Mary Pat Thynge, M strate Judge
Name and Title of Judicial Oficer
*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
et seq.); or (c) Section 1 of Act of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).