UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) 1:06-cr-170-WHA-DRB 

 )

ROY DALE WALLACE )

DETENTION ORDER ON MOTION

In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), the court held a detention

hearing this day, pursuant to the Government’s Amended Motion for Detention (Doc.200). The

defendant appeared with appointed counsel, James Cooper, and the United States appeared by Asst.

U.S. Atty. Chris Snyder. After due consideration of the Motion, and all available information

concerning the factors specified in 18 U.S.C. §3142(g), the Court concludes that the

defendant should be detained pending trial in this case.

Part I -- Findings of Fact

There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense for which the

maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act

(21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.) A Second Superseding Indictment filed September 7, 2006, charged

Defendant, in the first count, with conspiring with 10 co-defendants, between 2003 and May 31,

2006, to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and distribute 50 grams or more of

methamphetamine in Coffee County. The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established

by this finding that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance

of the defendant as required and the safety of the community. His unabated, long-term use of

methamphetamine presents a serious risk of non-appearance and danger to himself and the

community.

Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 216 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

Part II - Written Statement of Reasons for Detention

Defendant’s mother, a long term resident of Elba and the Enterprise area, provided the only

testimony, which confirmed her willingness to have Defendant reside with her, to facilitate electronic

monitoring, and otherwise to monitor his release conditions. The court is persuaded of her good

intentions but reasonably questions whether she can temper Defendant’s drug use, his reported

arguments with his father – also a resident of the household – and his adverse influence on or by two

brothers reported to have drug problems. 

Moreover, the court cannot ignore Defendant’s poor history for substance abuse treatment

and his poor history on supervised release. On May 16, 2000, at the age of 32, he was convicted in

this court on the same kindof conspiracyhere charged (case no. 1:00cr78-I-ID). Within five months

of his pretrialrelease, he tested positive for methamphetamine use, triggering revocation of his bond.

After serving 4 months in prison, he began supervised release on January 22, 2003, and tested

positive for meth use several times during the term of supervised release, leading to revocation and

the imposition of an additional prison term of 12 months. Records reflect that he entered inpatient

drug treatment in December 2003 but walked away without completing the program.

The court concurs with the probation officer’s assessment that pre-trial release supervision

is ill-advised considering the nature of the drug offense charged and Defendant’s substance abuse

history as well as his poor record on supervision and criminal history. After weighing all available,

pertinent information, the Court concludes that there are no conditions or combination of

conditions which will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety

of any other person and the community. It is, therefore, ORDERED, that the Government’s

MOTION (Doc. 200) is now GRANTED to the extent of its request for detention.

Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 216 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

Part III - Directions Regarding Detention

Therefore, it is ORDERED that 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 request of an attorney for the

Government, the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

Done this 13 day of October, 2006. th

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 216 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 3 of 3