Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-mj—OOO72-M PT Document 9 Filed O4/25/2005 Page 1 of 2
te. 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
Rashee Lamount Hunter Case Number: C Kp *5* I 3 - Gp} 3
Dejizrrdarit
In accordance with the Bail Refonn Act, IS U.S.C. § 3l42(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. § 3 l42(l)(l) and has been convicted ofa Q federal offense Q state
or local offense that would have been a federal offense if a circumstance giving risc to federal jurisdiction had existed that is
Q a crime of violence as defined in IS U.S.C. § 3l56(a)(4).
Q an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death.
Q an offense for which a maximum tcmt of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in
il
Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in I8 U.S.C.
§ 3 I42(t)(l)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
Q (2) The offcnsc 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 ofnot 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 rebuttablc 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 thc 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 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)
X (I) 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
l find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by X clear and convincing evidence X a prepon-
dcrancc of the evidence Defendant is charged with possessing a firearm and possessing cocaine. Evidence presented during the hearing revealed
that defendant and his associate, a convicted felon, assaulted and attempted to rob an individual. Both defendant and his associate, Fisher, are from
PA. After the victim sought the assistance ofthe WPD by flagging down some officers, defendant took flight, but running throughout the Adams
Street area, ignoring or refusing to obey the oliiccrs orders to stop. This resulted in a long foot chase during which Fisher attempted to shoot an
ofticer — pointed a gun at the pursuing officer. When defendant was apprehended, a gun was also found in his jacket which he removed and
dumped during the pursuit. Defendant admitted that he obtained the weapon in exchange for cocaine. Cocaine was also found in his possession.
Although defendant represented that he did not know Fisher previously, but had mct him of the train, Fisher was found in possession of car keys,
and his car was located near Adams street. It is of some curiosity that defendant was willing to admit to possession of the weapon, but denied
that the car keys were his.
At the time of this incident, defendant was on probation for intent to manufacture/deliver a controlled substance in PA. In 2003, a warrant was
issued for his failure to appear for arraignment on another charge for intent to manufacture. He was not apprehended on that warrant until
2004. Further, defendant has a violation of probation warrant outstanding in PA issued on March l, 2005. He was adjudged delinquent for
theft, receiving stolen property and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in 2000. So at 20 years of age, defendant has a significant criminal
history. He has not been employed since 2002. Based upon the evidence presented, def`endant’s conduct in response to the police and his
flight, as well as, his possession of a weapon and his probation status, the court finds that there are no conditions or combination there of that will
reasonably assure defendant’s appearance as required, and the safety of the cornrnunity.

Case 1 :05-mj—OOO72-M PT Document 9 Filed O4/25/2005 Page 2 of 2
at AO 472 (Rev. 3/S6) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Part III—Directions Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the custody ofthe Attomcy General or his designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate,
to the extent practicable, liom 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 ofthe United States or on request of an attomey for the
Govemment, the person in charge of thc corrections facilgshaifd e cfcndant 0 · · ' - · States marshal for the purpose of an appearance
in connection with a court proceeding. 4 A
agro 22, zoos ‘ AH ( __
Date . Signature of Judici gi rc ` K "'T
Mary Pat Thynge, Magi te Judge
Name and Title 0fJudiciaI Ojficer
*Insert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 80l et req.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 951
er seq.); or (c) Section I ofAct ofSept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).