Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cr-00605/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cr-00605-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Veronica Henderson
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

VERONICA HENDERSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 11-cr-00605-SBA-1 (KAW)

ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING 

SUPERVISED RELEASE VIOLATION 

HEARING

I. BACKGROUND

On March 14, 2005, Defendant Veronica Henderson was sentenced to 46 months in 

custody and 5 years of supervised release for committing Bank Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

Section 1344. On July 20, 2015, Defendant’s probation officer filed a petition alleging that 

Defendant violated four conditions of her supervised release. The alleged violations were the 

commission of another federal, state or local crime, failure to make restitution payments, failure to 

notify her probation officer within 72 hours of being arrested, and failure to submit monthly 

supervision reports since March 2014 to the present. The District Judge found probable cause and 

issued a no bail warrant for Defendant’s arrest on July 20, 2015.

Defendant was arrested on July 22, 2015. On September 9, 2015, a hearing was held on the 

Government’s motion to detain Defendant pending her supervised release violation hearing. 

Defendant was present, in custody, and represented by Joyce Leavitt. Assistant United States 

Attorney Maureen Bassette appeared on behalf of the Government. Probation Officer Shaheen 

Shan was also present. For the reasons stated below, the court orders that Defendant be detained. 

Case 4:11-cr-00605-SBA Document 19 Filed 10/13/15 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

On or about July 15, 2015, Defendant was arrested for violating Penal Code Sections 459 

(burglary), 664/487 (attempted grand theft – a felony), 148.10 (obstructing, resisting police 

resulting in great bodily injury – a felony), 69 (deter peace officer from performing duties), 242 

(battery), 470(b) (forgery), 530.5(a) (using personal identifying information for fraud), and 

14610(a) (possession of fraudulent identification). Since Defendant is charged with a supervised 

release violation, the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight 

risk or a danger to the community rests with the defendant. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(6); 18 U.S.C. 

3143. If there is probable cause to believe that while on release, the defendant committed a 

federal, state or local felony, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of 

conditions will assure that the defendant will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or 

the community. 18 U.S.C. §3148.

The Form 12 alleges that Defendant committed at least two state crimes while on release. 

Specifically, San Francisco Police Department officers responded to the Best Buy store located at 

1717 Harrison Street, in San Francisco, CA, regarding a female subject, later identified as 

Veronica Henderson, attempting to purchase items by fraudulent means. While officers were en 

route, SFPD dispatch alerted the officers that Defendant was fighting with the store security. 

When the officers arrived on the scene, a struggle with the Defendant ensued. During the struggle 

with Defendant, an officer's finger was broken.

The Best Buy employer recognized Defendant from a photograph he received via work 

email minutes earlier from a Best Buy store located in Pleasant Hill. The email contained the 

photograph of Defendant, her description, and a brief summary of how she fraudulently obtained 

two MacBook Pros using the same modus operandi. It was later determined that Defendant had 

entered the San Francisco Best Buy and attempted to purchase two MacBook Pros and a Samsung 

Virtual Reality headset with a fraudulent identification and credit card, bearing the name Bella 

Buster. The card was declined and Defendant attempted to leave the store to retrieve another card 

when she was contacted by store security, and the physical confrontation ensued. She was placed 

under citizen's arrest by a security guard for Battery.

Case 4:11-cr-00605-SBA Document 19 Filed 10/13/15 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

A search of Defendant's personal belongings revealed four additional credit cards believed 

to be forgeries. Two of the credit cards were in the name of Mary Lemon. Multiple receipts from 

luxury stores located in San Francisco were found in Defendant's purse, including receipts from 

Louis Vuitton, Chanel, and Cartier Jewelry displaying purchase amounts totaling approximately 

$60,000. The receipts were dated 7/16/15 under the name "Jennifer Ruan" using an American 

Express credit card. Approximately $2,900 in US currency was found in Defendant's purse along 

with a payment receipt for a storage unit located in San Leandro under the name of "Vanessa 

Henderson."

Defendant is also charged with failing to make payments towards the $328,850.47 in 

restitution she was required to pay since her supervision commenced on January 24, 2011. She 

also failed to notify her probation officer of her law enforcement contact and failed to submit 

monthly supervision reports since March 2014.

In light of the above, and having considered the proffers by the parties and the probation 

officer, and the arguments of counsel, the Court finds that Defendant has not established by clear 

and convincing evidence that he is not a risk of flight or a danger to the community. Further, given 

that there is probable cause to believe that Defendant committed at least one felony while on 

supervised release, she cannot rebut the presumption that there are no conditions or combination 

of conditions that the court can impose to mitigate the risk of non-appearance or danger to the 

community.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 4:11-cr-00605-SBA Document 19 Filed 10/13/15 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Therefore, Defendant shall remain committed to the custody of the Attorney General for 

confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or 

serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. Defendant shall be afforded 

reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel. On order of a court of the United 

States or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the corrections 

facility in which Defendant is confined shall deliver Defendant to a United States marshal for the 

purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2015

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:11-cr-00605-SBA Document 19 Filed 10/13/15 Page 4 of 4