From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Matthews

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Mar 26, 2013
Case Number CR 12-CR-895 CRB (NC) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013)

Opinion

Case Number CR 12-CR-895 CRB (NC)

03-26-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Tylee Matthews, Defendant.


ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), a detention hearing was held on March 26, 2013. Defendant was present, represented by his attorney AFPD Brandon LeBlanc. The United States was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Natalie Lee. 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.

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 indictment 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.

[×] No presumption applies.

PART H. 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 evidence to rebut the applicable presumption[s] to wit: .

Thus, the burden of proof shifts back to the United States. PART III. PROOF ( WHERE PRESUMPTIONS REBUTTED OR INAPPLICABLE ) N/A

PART IV. WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

[×] The Court has taken into account the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) and all of the information submitted at the hearing and finds as follows: The Court adopts the facts set forth in the Pretrial Services Report, which was not objected to by either party. Defendant is charged by indictment with being a felon in possession of firearm and ammunition, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The following factors establish by more than clear and convincing evidence that Matthews is a danger and should be detained in order to assure the safety of the community. The charged offense occurred while the defendant was under community supervision. In June 2012, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to 360 days of jail. He has an active restraining order. In 2008, he was convicted of the felony of being a minor illegally possessing a concealed firearm. Finally, although the weight of the evidence is the least significant bail factor, here the government proffered that the defendant was involved in an armed robbery and fled from officers before being arrested. Considering all the evidence presented, the Court finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community. Part V. Directions Regarding Detention

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate to the extent practicable from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on the request of an attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

____________

NATHANAEL COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge
AUSA ___, ATTY ___, PTS ___


Summaries of

United States v. Matthews

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Mar 26, 2013
Case Number CR 12-CR-895 CRB (NC) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Matthews

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Tylee Matthews, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Mar 26, 2013

Citations

Case Number CR 12-CR-895 CRB (NC) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013)