Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cr-00031-GMS Document 10 Filed 06/13/2005 Page 1 of 2
QI AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Jose Luis Vasguez-Juarez Case C KO 6 »3 \ - _
Dqfendant
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)(l) 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 l8 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 after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(f)(l)(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 Rom imprisonment
for the offense described in finding (l).
Q (4) Findings Nos. (l), (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 infomiation submitted at the hearing establishes by X clear and convincing evidence X a prepon-
derance ofthe evidence: The court determines that defendant is a risk of flight and will not abide by conditions or release and a danger to the
communig for the following reasons:
l. The charge against defendant is illegal re-entry into the US after having been previously deported from Texas to Mexico on June 4, 2002. The
govemment’s evidence in support of the charge is strong. It includes the following: fingerprint confirmation that defendant was the individual
deported in 2002; no application or permission granted to defendant to re-enter the US and defendant’s admission that he is a resident and national
of Mexico, that he re-entered the US illegally by foot via Arizona, and that he had been previously deported.
2. The prior state conviction/charge that lead to his original arrest that lead to his deportation in 2002 was for terroristic threatening and offensive
touching., offenses that fall within the category of crimes of violence.
3. Defendant was arrested again in 2005 on state charges which lead to the discovery of his return to the US. He pled guilty to possession
with intent to deliver a narcotic substance (cocaine) on June 6, 2005. At present the sentence imposed, if any is unknown.
4. Defendant has been known by a number of aliases including Jose L. Vasquez, David Guerrar and David Guerrero which shows an ability and
willingness to hide his identity which would assist in future flight.
5. In light of the detainer lodged by ICE, defendant did not oppose the govemment’s motion for detention.
;
1-
g'_ I ._ Q I : r 1}

Case 1 :05-cr-00031-GMS Document 10 Filed 06/13/2005 Page 2 of 2
\ AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Part HI—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, Bom 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 of the corrections facility shall deliver the d the 'ted States marshal for the purpose of an appearance
in connection with a court proceeding. A
June 10, 2005 at Q
Date Signature of J cial acer
Mary Pat ’1'hynge, Magistrate Judge
Name and Title of Judicial Ojicer
*Insert 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).