Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00036-WDM

Document 63

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No. 01-cr-00036-WDM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. JAMES W. PERRY Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on May 13, 2008. Present were the following: Suneeta Hazra, Assistant United States Attorney, Virginia Grady, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court carefully considered the entire court file and 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 and, by clear and convincing evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community, 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.

Case 1:01-cr-00036-WDM

Document 63

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 2 of 3

DATED and ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2008. By the Court: s/Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:01-cr-00036-WDM United States v. James W. Perry Case Number 01-cr-00036-WDM

Document 63

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 3 of 3

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION This matter comes before the court on a Petition on Supervised Release and Warrant for Arrest. The Petition alleges that on May 17, 2002, the defendant was placed on supervision by District Judge Miller, with the standard conditions of release and 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. On October 4, 2007, the defendant's conditions of release were modified to include his participation in a program of mental health treatment and residence in a residential re-entry center for a period of up to four months. While in the residential re-entry center, the defendant was required to observe the rules of that facility. During a hearing on May 13, 2008, 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 on Supervised Release 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 defendant has been charged with various state criminal offenses that occurred on or about June 2, August 5 and October 25, 2007. In particular, the defendant has been charged with third degree assault, harassment, felony menacing, and child abuse in connection with a domestic dispute with his wife and her 14 year old daughter. The defendant also was charged with criminal violation of a restraining order. The Petition further alleges that the defendant failed to comply with the rules of the residential re-entry center by using alcohol on December 5, 2007 and January 24, 2008, and by leaving that facility on January 24, 2008 without authorization. The defendant remained in an absconder status thereafter. Given the defendant's apparent failure to comply with the conditions of supervised release imposed by the District Court, 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.