Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-mj-00232-U NA Document 9 Filed 11/21 /2007 Page 1 of 2
fst. AO 472 (Rev. I2/O3) Order ofDetention Pending Trial
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
ANGELA JONES, Case Number: 07-232—l\/I
Defendant
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3I42(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 (I) The defendant is charged with an offense described in IS U.S.C. § 3 I42(f)(l) and has been convicted ofa Q federal offense Q state
or local offense that would have been a federal offense ifa circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had existed - that is
Q a crime of violence as dehned in |8 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 term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in
it
Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted oftwo or more prior federal offenses described in l8 U.S.C.
§ 3 I42(t)(l)(A)—(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
Q (2) The offense 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 of not 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 rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
safety of`(an) other pcrson(s) and the community. I further find that the defendant has not rcbutted this presumption.
Alternative Findings (A)
(I) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
for which a maximum term of imprisonment often years or more is prescribed in .
under l8 U.S.C. §924(c).
(2) The defendant has not rebuttcd the presumption established by finding I that no condition or combination ofconditions will reas ’ I- ure
the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety ofthe community. F I L E D
Alternative Findings (B)
X (I) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear. I
X (2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the cot munit ·. O 1
1 L.
1_Z


I ` I I ' ‘ ' '
Part Il—Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
I find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by X clear and convincing evidence X a prepon-
derance of the evidence that
Based on the aftidavit of probable cause, the report ofthe Probation Office, and other information provided to the Court at the preliminary and
detention hearings, the Court finds clear and convincing evidence that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure the safety of the
community between now and the time ofthe Defendant’s trial. The Court further finds that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure
that the Defendant would appear for all Court events in this matter.
The Court has reached these conclusions based on the following Endings and for the following reasons: _
the nature and circumstances of the offense: the Defendant is accused of being a felon in possession ofa firearm. It is alleged, and the Defendant
has largely admitted, that she has a prior felony conviction for insurance fraud, though she nonetheless attempted to purchase a firearm;
when she was denied the purchase due to her status, she worked with her roommate, Tamar Daniels, to have Daniels purchase the same type
of tirearin. (Defendant’s demonstrated willingness to do something she knows she isn’t supposed to be doing, and to entangle others’ in her
efforts. raises a concern that she will not be fully compliant with release conditions, including the requirement to appear at all court
proceedings.) Once purchased, Defendant showed Daniels how to use the firearm. It was kept in Defendant’s bedroom on Defendant’s side
of the bed.
the weight of the evidence: is strong. Defendant and Daniels` statements appear to establish atleast one instance of actual possession ofthe Hrearm
by Defendant, as well as ongoing constructive possession. There does not appear to be any dispute that Defendant has a prior felony
conviction and that the Erearm traveled in interstate commerce.
the history and characteristics ofthe Defendant: Defendant was discharged from the Army due to her conviction for distribution of cocaine. She
also has a felony conviction t`or insurance fraud as well as a retail theft conviction. There is an outstanding bench warrant for shoplifting.
Defendant admits to recent illicit drug use. Defendant has significant health issues, which would be more easily treated in a non-detention
situation but are also treatable in a detention context. Defendant has employment with her brother and has the support of her brother and
Daniels; she also has partial custody ofa child.
the nature and seriousness ol`the danger to the community that would be posed bythe Defendants release: as a felon in possession, with a prior
drug distribution conviction as well as recent drug use, the Defendant would pose a danger to the community if released.

Case 1 :07-mj-00232-U NA Document 9 Filed 11/21 /2007 Page 2 of 2
AO 472 (Rev. 12/O3) Order o1`Detention Pending Trial
Part III—Directions Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the custody ofthe Attorney General or his designated representative for conhnement in a corrections facility separate,
to the extent practicable. from 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 attorney for the
Government, the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall deliver the defenda o the United States marshal for the purpose ofan appearance
in connectio with a court proceeding.
i%»»¤.;.rg/ Qtr Aww D/sd. (LE
Date Signature of Judge
Leonard P. Stark U.S. Magistrate
Name and Ti//e 0fJudge
*1nsert as applicablet (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 ez seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 951
e/seq.); or (c) Section 1 ofAct of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).

Case 1:07-mj-00232-UNA

Document 9

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-mj-00232-UNA

Document 9

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 2 of 2