T he C l erk of the C ourti s di r ect ed t o amend the capt i on t o r ead a s s how n above f or * p u rpo ses o f th is ord er. 09 - 12 04 - cr U ni t ed St at es v. Tw i ne UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RULI NG S BY S UM M ARY ORD ER DO NOT HAV E PRECEDEN TI A L E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED O N O R A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PERM I TTED A ND I S G OV ERNED BY FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE PROC EDUR E 3 2 . 1 AN D TH I S COU RT’ S LOCA L RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A DO CUM ENT FI LE D W I TH THI S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P END I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S ERVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY P ARTY NOT REP RES ENT ED BY CO U N SE L . A t a s tate d ter m o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 14 day of J ul y, tw o thous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

GE RA RD E . L YNC H, DE NNY C HI N,

C i r cui tJudges .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel l ee , v. N o. 09- 1204- cr( L ead) 10- 0709- cr( C on) 10- 2043- cr( C on) S YL VE S T E R T W I NE , a l s o k n o wn a s T W AN, D ef endant

-Appel lant , TERRA NC E REED, a l s o k n o wn a s SUPREM E, S HAMEE K S UGGS , a l s o k n o wn a s S HA, D ef endan t s. *

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SU B M I T T I N G FO R A PPE L L A N T : M i chae l H . Sporn, N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork. S UB MI T T I NG F OR AP P E L L E E : L i cha M . N yi endo, A s s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es A tt o rne y (D av id C . Jam e s, S teph en J. M ey er, A s s is ta n t U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e y s , on the br i ef ), f orL or et t a E. L ynch, U ni t ed St at es A tt orney f or the East ern D i s tr i ctof

N ew Y ork, B r ookl yn, N ew Y ork.O n A pr i l 22, 2010, a gra nd j ury r eturned a s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entchar gi ng T w i ne 1 wi th two c o u n t s o f

p o s s e s s i o n wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e c r a c k c o c a i n e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. § 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( C ) , a nd one c ountof cons pi r acy t o di s tr i but e coc ai ne and c r ack c ocai ne in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . W e r evi ew t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derbas ed on the cons pi r acy char ge pendi ng atthe t i m e, butw e not e thatthe s ubs equent l y a dded char ges onl y s tr engthen the bas i s f

ordet ent i on. 2 A p p ea l f rom the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfor the E astern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (D o ra L . Ir iz a rr y , Judge ). UP ON DUE CONS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DE CR E E D th a tth e j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u rte n t e r e d o n Ma r c h 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 , i s AF F I RMED . D ef endantSyl ves t erT w i ne appe al s f r om an or derdenyi ng hi m bai l pendi ng t r i al on a c h arg e o f co n sp ir ac y to d istri b u te a n d p o sses s w ith inten t t o d istri b u te 50 g ram s o r m o re of cr ack c ocai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 846, 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( A ) . W e r evi ew a di s tr i ct 1 court ’ s bai l det erm i nat i on f orcl earerr orand w i l l notr ever s e “unl es s on the ent i r e evi dence w e ar e l ef

tw i th the def

i ni t e and f

i rm convi ct i on t hata m i s t ake has been com m i tt ed. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Sabhnani , 493 F. 3d 63, 75 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i tt ed) ; s ee a lso U n ited S tate s v . L a F o n tain e , 2 1 0 F .3 d 1 2 5 , 1 3 0 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); U n ited S tate s v . F e rra n ti, 66 F. 3d 540, 542 ( 2d C i r . 1995) . W e det ectno s uch err ori n thi s cas e. B ecaus e Tw i ne i s char ged w i th s er i ous drug of f ens es , a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on ar i s es that“no condi t i on orcombi nat i on of condi t i ons w i l l r eas onabl y ass ur e” hi s appea r ance or “the s af ety of any otherpe r s on a nd the comm uni ty. ” 18 U . S. C . § 3142( e) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. M er cede s , 254 F. 3d 433, 436 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) . T he r ecor d c onvi nci ngl y s upport s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s f

i ndi ng thatT w i ne f

ai l ed t o r ebutthi s pr es um pt i on. See 18 U . S. C . § 3142(g)3

(i den t i fyi ng rel evan tfact ors t o incl ud e (1) the n ature and ci rcum st ances o f the o ff ense char ged, ( 2) the s tr ength of the governm ent ’ s cas e, ( 3) the def endant ’ s hi s t ory and char act er i s t i cs , and ( 4) the natur e and s er i ous nes s of the dange rt o the comm uni ty pos ed by pr e- tr i al r el eas e) . T he cons pi r acy char ge pendi ng atthe t i m e of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det ent i on or dercarr i es a pr i s on t erm of t en year s t o l i f e, see 21 U . S. C . § § 841( a) , ( b) , 846, pr ovi di ng a stron g ince n ti v e to flee . T h is co n clus ion is reinfo rce d b y the stren g th o f th e g o v ern m en t’ s cas e, w hi ch i s l ar gel y bas ed on r ecor ded evi dence . T he def ens e may be abl e t o chal l enge the m e a n in g o f w h a t w a s s a id , b u t n o t th e fa c t th a t it w a s s a id . F urther, T w i ne’s al l eged com m i ssi on of the ch arged crim e w h il e o n su p erv ised rel ease and hi s ext ens i ve hi s t ory of cr i m i nal act i vi ty, of

t en comm i tt ed w hi l e on pr obat i on or su p e rv ise d re lea se a n d so m e tim e s th re a ten in g v io len c e , stro n g ly ind ica te T w in e ’s in a b ili ty to c o n fo rm h is c o n d u c t to th e la w , a u g m e n tin g c o n c e rn s a s to b o th h is a b ili ty to a b id e b y b a il cond i t i ons and hi s pos i ng a dange rt o the comm uni ty. I n thes e ci r cumst ance s , the di s tr i ct courtact ed w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on i n concl udi ng t hatT w i ne’ s propos al of hous e arr es tand f

our s ur et or s w i th no as s et s a nd mi ni m al i ncome w as i ns uf f i ci entt o ove r come the p res um pt i on o f fl igh t and d an g er. B ecaus e w e det ectno err or , l etal one cl earerr or , i n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe pr opos ed bai l condi t i ons coul d notr eas onabl y as s ur e Tw i ne’ s appear ance attr i al or th e s a f e ty o f th e c o mm u n i ty , th e d e t e n t i o n o r d e ri s AF F I RMED .

FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt