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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD ALLEN FABEL,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-41RSL

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CLARIFY, CLARIFYING PRIOR

ORDER, AND AFFIRMING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

DETENTION ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Clarify Order (Dkt.

#121) requesting that the Court clarify its order Affirming Magistrate Judge’s Detention Order

(Dkt. #120, the “Order”). In the Order, the Court denied defendant’s Motion to Review Order of

Detention and erroneously imported some of the facts regarding another defendant into the

Order. Therefore, the Court hereby clarifies the Order. 

The Court has reviewed the transcript of the February 16, 2006 detention hearing before

the Honorable Cynthia Imbrogno, United States Magistrate Judge in Spokane; defendant’s

motion for revocation of the detention order; the Government’s opposition to revocation of the

detention order; the recorded April 10, 2006 detention hearing before Judge Donohue and the

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 125 Filed 06/23/06 Page 1 of 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 ORDER - 2

remainder of the record. It considers de novo the detention order issued by Judge Donohue. 

U.S. v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The Court will detain defendant prior to trial if it determines “that no condition or

combination of conditions will reasonably assure . . . the safety of any other person and the

community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court considers four

factors when deciding if defendant is a danger to the community: “(1) [t]he nature and

circumstances of the offense charged . . . (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3)

the history and characteristics of the person . . . (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to

any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release.” The Government

bears the burden of establishing “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a

danger to the community.” United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 1991). 

 The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that defendant poses a danger to the

community. Defendant is charged with racketeering. The Court clarifies that he has not been

charged in the substantive counts nor specifically named in any of the Predicate Acts involving

Murder or Witness Tampering. The Court further clarifies that defendant has not been charged

with a capital crime. However, as President of the Washington Nomads Chapter of the Hells

Angels Motorcycle Club, the defendant had ultimate decision-making authority for the activities

of the Hells Angels in the State of Washington. Those decisions included directing, sanctioning,

approving, and permitting other members to engage in criminal activities including murder,

attempted murder, intimidation, extortion, and robbery. These facts clearly demonstrate that

defendant poses a significant risk to individuals involved in this trial and to the community at

large.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Clarify Order (Dkt. #121) is

GRANTED, the Court clarifies the Order as set forth above, and defendant’s “Motion to Review 

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 125 Filed 06/23/06 Page 2 of 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 ORDER - 3

Order of Detention” (Dkt. #86) is DENIED.

DATED this 23rd day of June, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 125 Filed 06/23/06 Page 3 of 3