Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00484-WDM

Document 48

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No.: 00-cr-00484-WDM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY JAMES SMEDLEY, Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on October 1, 2007. Present were the following: Brenda Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Matthew Golla, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court reviewed the entire court file and considered the comments of counsel. The Court has concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant, based upon the attached findings. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or their 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; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult confidentially with defense counsel; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon order of this Court or on request of an attorney for the United States of America, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with this proceeding. DATED and ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2007. By the Court: s/ Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:00-cr-00484-WDM

Document 48

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 2 of 3

United States v. Anthony James Smedley Case Number 00-cr-00484-WDM

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION This matter comes before the court on a Petition for Issuance of Arrest Warrant because of Violation of Probation and/or Supervised Release and Warrant for Arrest of Probationer/Supervised Release. The Petition alleges that on May 31, 2001, the defendant was placed on supervision by District Judge Miller, with the special condition that the defendant participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug abuse, and that the defendant abstain from the use of alcohol and other intoxicants during the course of treatment. During a hearing on October 1, 2007, the defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing under Rule 32.1 of the Federal of Criminal Procedure, and did not present any information relating to the issue of detention. The defendant, through counsel, also advised the court that he was not contesting the government's request for detention. Based upon the facts alleged in the Petition and in light of the defendant's waiver, the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant violated one or more conditions of his release. Under Rule 32.1, the court "may release or detain the [defendant] under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) pending further proceedings. The burden of establishing that the person will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community rests with the [defendant]." In making my findings of fact, I have taken judicial notice of the information set forth in the Petition and the entire court file. I further note the defendant's decision not to contest detention at this time. Weighing all of the information presently before the court, I find that defendant has failed to sustain his burden under Rule 32.1. I specifically note that the Petition indicates the defendant admitted to possessing and using an illegal controlled substance, marijuana, on or about August 30, 2006. The defendant tested positive for cocaine on or about August 30, 2006, however he denied using that substance when confronted by the supervising officer. On March 23, 2007, the defendant pled guilty to aggravated extortion and received a sentence of five years in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections. Given the defendant's present status of incarceration, his apparent failure to comply with the conditions of supervised release imposed by the District Court, and his decision not to contest detention, I find there is no combination of conditions that I could set that would properly assure the defendant's appearance at further proceedings in this case.

Case 1:00-cr-00484-WDM

Document 48

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 3 of 3