IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. )
) Case No. xxCR-149 (TAF)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )
MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF DETENTION ORDER AND
INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145, defendant xxxxxxxxxxxx, through counsel, respectfully
submits this motion for revocation of an order of pretrial detention entered on April 5,
1999, by the Honorable Deborah A. Robinson. Mr. xxxxxxxx requests release in light of the
decision in United States v. Singleton, Case No. 99-3053 (D.C. Cir., June 25,
1999), and on the additional ground that he does not pose a serious risk of flight
requiring pretrial detention. The grounds for this motion are more fully stated in the
accompanying memorandum. Mr. xxxxxxxx requests a prompt hearing on this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
A.J. KRAMER
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
______________________________
Gregory L. Poe
Assistant Federal Public Defender 625 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 550
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 208-7500
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Mr. xxxxxxxx is charged in a one-count indictment with possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon on or about April 1, 1999 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The detention order is based in part on the proposition that Mr. xxxxxxxx poses a danger to the safety of the community. The sole predicate for that aspect of the detention order, under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(A), is that a § 922(g)(1) charge is ostensibly a "crime of violence" within the meaning of the Bail Reform Act.(1) In United States v. Singleton, Case No. 99-3053 (D.C. Cir., June 25, 1999), the D.C. Circuit held that the "plain meaning of the Bail Reform Act excludes felon-in-possession offenses from the category of violent crimes that trigger detention hearings." Slip Op. at 2. Accordingly, no statutory basis exists on which to hold Mr. xxxxxxxx as an ostensible danger to the community.
The Magistrate Judge's memorandum in support of the detention order, filed on April 22, 1999, also concludes that the government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure defendant's presence in court as may be required[.]" See Exhibit 1 at 3; see also Exhibit 2 at 22 (excerpts of April 5, 1999, Hearing Transcript). As the transcript of the detention hearing shows, the government requested detention only on the ground of alleged dangerousness. See Exhibit 2 at 18. More important, no evidence was introduced at the detention hearing to suggest that Mr. xxxxxxxx is a serious risk of flight. While the Magistrate Judge's detention memorandum states in part that "[c]ounsel for the government proffered that defendant has [a] prior conviction[] for flight to avoid prosecution," see Exhibit 1 at 3, that statement is not supported by the hearing transcript. Furthermore, the Pretrial Services Report reflects no conviction for any such offense, stating in part only that Mr. xxxxxxxx was arrested in 1993 for such an offense with no disposition noted. Accordingly, even assuming that an arrest allegation in the Pretrial Services report may be considered by the Court with respect to detention, Mr. xxxxxxxx submits that the record does not support a conclusion, by a preponderance of the evidence or otherwise, that Mr. xxxxxxxx is a serious risk of flight requiring pretrial detention to assure his appearance at trial. Accordingly, Mr. xxxxxxxx requests that he be released in this case pending trial. Mr. xxxxxxxx requests a prompt hearing on this motion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant Imanu xxxxxxxx respectfully requests that the Court revoke the April 5, 1999, order of detention issued by the Magistrate Judge. Mr. xxxxxxxx requests a prompt hearing on this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
A.J. KRAMER
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
_______________________________
Gregory L. Poe
Assistant Federal Public Defender 625 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 550
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 208-7500
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. )
) Case No. xxCR-149 (TAF)
xxxxxxxx, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )
ORDER
Upon consideration of defendant xxxxxxxx's Motion for Revocation of Detention Order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and in light of the entire record in this case, it is hereby
ORDERED that Mr. xxxxxxxx's motion is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Mr. xxxxxxxx be released forthwith pending trial as reflected in a separate Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this ___ day of _____________, 1999.
_______________________________________
THE HONORABLE THOMAS A. FLANNERY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Gregory L. Poe
Assistant Federal Public Defender
625 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
Suite 550
Washington, D.C. 20004
Leutrell Osborne, Esq.
Office of the United States Attorney
555 Fourth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 28th day of June, 1999, a copy of the
foregoing Motion for Revocation of a Detention Order and Incorporated Memorandum was
served on Leutrell Osborne, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, by hand delivering a
copy to a receptacle at the United States District Courthouse, 3rd & Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., which has been provided for pleadings to be served upon
the Office of the United States Attorney.
____________________________
Gregory L. Poe
Assistant Federal Public Defender
1. Under 18 U.S.C. §3142(f), a defendant may be held without bond only if a case involves (1) a "crime of violence;" (2) an offense with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death; (3) certain drug offenses with a maximum sentence of ten years or more; (4) any felony where the defendant has two or more prior convictions that would qualify under one of the first three subsections; (5) a serious risk of flight; or (6) serious risk that the defendant will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice.