The opinion of the court was delivered by: S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for De Novo Review of Bond (doc. 12), and the Government's Response (doc. 15). The Court held a hearing on the matter on March 28, 2007. For the reasons stated herein, as well as those announced during the hearing, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion.
Defendant was indicted on February 7, 2007, with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) (doc. 8). At Defendant's initial appearance, the assigned Magistrate Judge ordered that Defendant be detained without bond pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (doc. 12). Thereafter, Defendant filed the instant motion, moving the Court to review the Magistrate Judge's Order de novo, and release Defendant on bond (doc. 12). Defendant argues that:
While the charges alleged still constitute a potential penalty of ten years to life...the actual facts disclosed at this time by the United States Attorney reflect that the allegations against Mr. Anderson would only warrant a penalty of ten years to life if the Government were to file an enhancement against him (doc. 12).
Further, Defense Counsel represented to the Court during oral arguments that Defendant can now offer six properties to secure a bond (Id.). Defendant argues that these and other personal factors merit Defendant's release on bond pending trial.
In response, the Government notes that in cases where a person is charged with involvement in an offense for which the maximum term of imprisonment is more than ten years, a rebuttable presumption arises that no bond should be issued (doc. 15). The Government states that the presumption is triggered here because, contrary to Defendant's representation, Defendant faces a penalty of up to forty years imprisonment if convicted (Id., citing 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)). The Government contends that Defendant has not overcome this presumption and that the totality of the circumstances favor detention (Id.).
Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds the Government's arguments well-taken. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), detention pending trial is proper where the Court finds that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community." Factors to be considered include the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the weight of the evidence against the person, the history and characteristics of the person, and 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. § 1842(g). As stated by the Government, a rebuttable presumption arises in this case that detention is proper because the maximum imprisonment for the crime alleged is more than ten years. 18 U.S.C. § 1842(e). Defendant has not overcome that presumption. Taking into account the nature of the alleged offense, the amount of money involved, the Defendant's numerous previous encounters with the law, and the presumption that arises in this case, the Court finds that pre-trial release is not proper. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Bond Review (doc. 12).
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...