ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
NATHANAEL COUSINS, Magistrate Judge.
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), a detention hearing was held on August 14, and continued on August 16, 2013. Defendant was present, represented by his attorney AFPD Daniel Blank. The United States was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexandra Summer. The hearing was held publicly. Both parties were advised of their opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence. Both parties were advised of their right to appeal this detention order to the District Court.
Davis a/k/a Gibson is charged by indictment with escape from a GEO Care residential reentry center in San Francisco on November 13, 2012, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). He has entered a not guilty plea and is presumed innocent.
PART I. PRESUMPTIONS APPLICABLE
The defendant is charged with an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1) and the defendant has been convicted of a prior offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1) while on release pending trial for a federal, state or local offense, and a period of not more than five (5) years has elapsed since the date of conviction or the release of the person from imprisonment, whichever is later.
This establishes a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community.There is probable cause based upon the criminal complaint to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
A. ___ for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed in 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., § 951 et seq., or § 955a et seq., OR
B. ___ under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c): use of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
This establishes a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community.
X No presumption applies.
PART II. REBUTTAL OF PRESUMPTIONS, IF APPLICABLE
The defendant has not come forward with sufficient evidence to rebut the applicable presumption, and he therefore will be ordered detained.The defendant has come forward with ...