UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
August 11, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Laurel Beeler United States Magistrate Judge
[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DETENTION
The parties appeared before the Honorable Laurel Beeler on August 8, 2011, for a detention hearing. The defendant was present and represented by Assistant Federal Public Defender Angela Hansen. The government was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Brian Lewis. The government requested detention, submitting that no condition or combination of conditions of release would reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required.
Upon consideration of the court file and the government's proffer as discussed below, the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release would reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. The Court, therefore, orders the defendant detained without prejudice to re-raising the issue of his detention after his current term of imprisonment expires.*fn1
The Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141-50, sets forth the factors which the Court must consider in determining whether pretrial detention is warranted. In coming to its decision, the Court has considered those factors, paraphrased below: (1) the nature and seriousness of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person including, among other considerations, employment, past conduct and criminal history, and records of court appearances; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
Defendant Jamar Maddox is charged in a one-count indictment with escape from custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 751(a) and 4082(a). In considering all of the facts and proffers presented at the hearing, the Court finds the following factors among the most compelling in reaching its conclusion that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure the defendant's appearance as required. First, the defendant is currently a federal prisoner with a projected release date of October 26, 2011. Second, the defendant is currently charged with escaping from federal custody on May 24, 2011. These factors, among others adduced at the hearing, demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that if released the defendant would not appear as required.
Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) the defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General forconfinement in a corrections facility; (2) the defendant be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with his counsel; and, (3) on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which the defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to an authorized Deputy United States Marshal for the purpose of any appearance in connection with a court proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.