Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cr-00019-EWN

Document 45

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No.: 04-cr-00019-EWN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. GILLIAN CARISSA SANDOVAL, Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on January 13, 2006. Present were the following: Habib Nasrullah, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Berger, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court heard testimony, reviewed the Petition on Probation and heard the argument 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 17th day of January, 2006. By the Court: s/ Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:04-cr-00019-EWN

Document 45

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 2 of 2

United States v. Gillian Carissa Sandoval Case Number 04-cr-00019-EWN

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION This matter comes before the court on a Petition on Probation and a Warrant for Arrest of Probationer. The Petition alleges that on May 7, 2004, the defendant was placed on supervision for a period of five years by District Judge Nottingham, with the condition that the defendant participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug abuse, that the defendant abstain from the use of alcohol and other intoxicants during the course of treatment, and that the defendant participate in a program of mental health treatment as directed by the probation officer. The defendant also was placed on home detention for a period of four months and required to pay the costs of electronic monitoring. On June 30, 2005, Judge Nottingham modified the defendant' s conditions of probation to require further home detention and electronic monitoring for a period of up to four months.. During a hearing on January 13, 2006, the defendant waived her 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' waiver, the court finds that probable cause exists to believe s that the defendant violated one or more conditions of her 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 Probation and the entire court file. Weighing all of the information presently before the court, including the evidence presented by the government during the detention hearing on January 13th, I find that defendant has failed to sustain her burden under Rule 32.1. I specifically note that the Petition on Probation indicates that on December 12, 2005, the defendant submitted a urine sample that tested positive for cocaine. It also appears that the defendant failed to attend individual drug treatment counseling sessions on November 3 and December 8, 2005, and failed to submit urine samples on December 9, 2005 or thereafter. The defendant failed to comply with the conditions of home detention on October 25, 2005, failed to timely report a contact with state law enforcement officers on November 28, 2005, failed to report a change in her employment status on October 26, 2005, failed to timely report a change in her residence on November 21, 2005, and otherwise failed to report to her supervising officer as required. Given the defendant' apparent inability or failure to comply with the conditions of s 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' appearance at further proceedings in this s case.