Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00031-WDM

Document 57

Filed 12/19/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No.: 01-cr-00031-WDM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. JOHN WESTON, Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on December 19, 2007. Present were the following: Kasandra Carleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Warren Williamson, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court reviewed the entire court file and considered the arguments 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 19th day of December, 2007. By the Court: s/ Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:01-cr-00031-WDM

Document 57

Filed 12/19/2007

Page 2 of 3

United States v. John Weston Case Number 01-cr-00031-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. The Petition alleges that on May 19, 2006, the defendant was placed on supervision by District Judge Miller, for a period of 30 months with the special condition that the defendant participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, and that the defendant abstain from the use of alcohol and other intoxicants during the course of treatment. The defendant also was required to reside in a community corrections facility for a period of six months. During a hearing on December 19, 2007, the defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing under Rule 32.1 of the Federal of Criminal Procedure. Based upon the facts alleged in the Petition and in light of the defendant's waiver, the court finds probable cause to believe that the defendant violated one or more conditions of his release. This matter was referred to the district court for revocation proceedings. 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 arguments made by defense counsel with respect to detention. 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 failed to participate in substance abuse testing on January 28, September 16, October 7, October 30, and November 6, 2007, and failed to keep counseling appointments on May 24, July 12, October 12, and October 26, 2007. It further appears that the defendant falsified medical records to conceal his failure to appear for counseling on May 24, 2007. Finally, the Petition indicates the defendant absconded on or about October 12, 2007. Given the defendant's apparent unwillingness or inability 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.

Case 1:01-cr-00031-WDM

Document 57

Filed 12/19/2007

Page 3 of 3