U.S. v. Martin

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RODNEY MARTIN

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Chattanooga

Date published: Jul 11, 2011

Case No. 1:99-cr-121 (E.D. Tenn. Jul. 11, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 1:99-cr-121.

July 11, 2011

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM CARTER, Magistrate Judge

The defendant appeared for a hearing before the undersigned on July 8, 2011, in accordance with Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on the Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision of U.S. Probation Officer Janet Landers and the Warrant for Arrest issued by U.S. District Judge Harry S. Mattice, Jr. Those present for the hearing included:

(1) AUSA Annie Svolto for the USA.

(2) The defendant RODNEY MARTIN.

(3) Attorney Mary Ellen Coleman for defendant.

(4) Supervising U.S. Probation Officer Janet Landers.

(5) Deputy Clerk Barbara Lewis.

After being sworn in due form of law the defendant was informed or reminded of his privilege against self-incrimination accorded him under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It was determined the defendant wished to be represented by an attorney and he qualified for the appointment of an attorney to represent him at government expense. Attorney Mary Ellen Coleman of Federal Defender Services was appointed to represent the defendant. It was determined the defendant had been provided with a copy of the Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision and the Warrant for Arrest and had the opportunity of reviewing those documents with Atty. Coleman. It was also determined the defendant was capable of being able to read and understand the copy of the aforesaid documents he had been provided.

AUSA Svolto called Supervising USPO Janet Landers as a witness and moved that the defendant be detained pending a hearing to determine whether his term of supervision should be revoked.

Findings

(1) Based upon Supervising USPO Janet Landers' testimony, the undersigned finds there is probable cause to believe defendant has committed violations of his conditions of supervised release as alleged or set forth in the Petition.

(2) The defendant has not carried his burden under Rule 32.1(a)(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that if released on bail he will not flee or will not pose a danger to the community.

Conclusions

It is ORDERED:

(1) The motion of AUSA Svolto that defendant be DETAINED WITHOUT BAIL pending his revocation hearing before Judge Mattice is GRANTED.

(2) The U.S. Marshal shall transport defendant to a revocation hearing before Judge Mattice on Monday, July 25, 2011, at 9:00 am.