[DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 26 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 1- cr-0 00 58 -CAR- CHW-2

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us ANDREW

W INGO, a.k .a. Andy

W in go , Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Andrew Wing o app eal s fr om th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g h is ap pe al for Case: 12-11269 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 1 of 7pr etria l re le as e an d s up erv is io n u nd er the Bai l Re fo rm Act o f 19 84 , 18 U.S.C. § 3 14 5( b) . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we affi rm . I. InNov em

be r 20 11 , W in go was i nd ic te d o n c ha rg es of c on sp ira cy to de frau d th e Uni te d S ta te s, m on ey lau nd eri ng , con sp ira cy

to co m m itm on ey

lau nd eri ng , and in te rs ta te tra ns po rta ti on of s to le n p ro pe rty. At an in it ia l ap pe aran ce, a m ag is tra te jud ge rel eas edW in go on bo ndpe nd in g t ria l. The m ag is tra te jud ge im po se d se ve ral co nd it io ns of r el eas e, in cl ud in g t ha t Win go “ refr ai n fr om po ss es si ng a fir earm , des tru ct iv e d ev ic e, orot he r da ng ero us weap on s.” Th e m ag is tra te jud ge warn edW in go th atth e co nd it io n “ m ean s n otiny ou r ho us e, no t o n your pe rs on , no t i n your caras l on g a s thi s b on d i s p en di ng .” On J anua ry

6, 2 01 2, Win go ’s pro ba ti on off ic er fi le d aPet it io n fo r Act io n o n Co nd it io ns of P retria l Re le as e, al le gi ng th atW in go vi ol at edth e co nd it io ns of h is pr etria l re le as e b ecau se he was fo un d t o b e in po ss es si on of afir earm or o th er da ng ero us weap on . At a h eari ng on th e m at te r, W in go st ip ul at edth athe “ di d po ss es s thr ee fi rearm s an d/ orda ng ero us weap on s athi s re si de nc e . . . inc lu di ng a Tho m ps on /C en te r Arm s .5 0 c al ib er Thun de r Hawk [,] . . . a Col t au to m at ic .25 cal ib er h an dg un an d aStu rm Ru ge r & Co m

pa ny, Inc. Mi ni 14 .23 3 c al ib er as ev id en cedby the sei zu re o f sa idfir earm s b y th e p ro ba ti on off

ic e.” 2 Case: 12-11269 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 2 of 7W in go ’s wife t es ti fie d a t the he ari ng th atsh e an d Win go att em pt edto rem ov e al l the fir earm s fr om th ei r ho m e aft er Wing o was in di ct ed . She ex pl ai ne d th atW in go su ffer edfro m de m en ti a, in so m

ni a, an d h ead ach es , for

whi chhe was pr es cri be d p sycho tro pi c m ed ic at io n. Acco rd in g t o M rs . W in go , th e m ed ic at io ns cau se d Win go to wake at n ig htan d m ov e th in gs inth e h ou se aro un d wi th ou t reca ll in g t he se in ci de nt s the ne xtm orni ng . Mrs . W in go als o t es ti fie d t ha t s he an d W in go ha d t hr ee m in orch il dr enli vi ng inth e h om e, an d t ha t Win go ’s weap on s were o fte n i n p la in si gh t. Wing o’s p ro ba ti on off ic er t es ti fie d t ha t s he fear edfor he r sa fety when sh e v is it edW in go ’s ho m e b ecau se of the nu m be r of weap on s s he sa w inth e h ou se . Bas edon th is tes ti m on y , th e m ag is tra te jud ge fou ndby clearan d c on vi nc in g ev id en ce tha t Win go vi ol at edth e co nd it io ns of h is pre tri al rel eas e. The ju dg e ex pr es se d c on cern for

th e ch il dr en ’s saf

ety co ns id eri ng th e weap on s Win go po ss es se d a ndhi s m en ta l i nf irmiti es . The jud ge acco rd in gl y fou ndth atno co nd it io n o r co m

bi na ti on of c on di ti on s wo ul d a ss ur e th atW in go wou ldno t p os e a da ng er t o t he co m

m un it y . Andth e jud ge co nc lu de d t ha t Win go was unl ik el y to ab id e b y an y co nd it io n i m

po se d b as edon hi s fa il ur e to co nf orm to th e o rig in al te rm s, h is hi st ory

of p os se ss in g a n e xt en si ve weap on co ll ect io n, an d h is m en ta l co nd it io n. Th e m ag is tra te jud ge th eref or e rev ok edbo ndan d o rd eredth atW in go 3 Case: 12-11269 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 3 of 7be de ta in edpe nd in g tria l.

W in go fil eda m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n o f th e o rd er o f de te nt io n, wh ic h th e m ag is tra te jud ge de ni ed . W in go th enap pe al edto th e d is tri ctco urt, p ur su an t t o 18 U.S.C. § 3 14 5( b) , forrev ie w of t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s ord er. The di st ric t co urt de ni edth e ap pe al an d a ffi rm edth e o rd er o f de te nt io n. Th is is W in go ’s app eal . II. W e subjec t the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er af firm in g a n o rd er o f de te nt io n u nd er th e Bai l Re fo rm

Act o f 19 84 , 18 U.S.C. § 3 14 8( b) , whi chpre se nt s m ix ed qu es ti on s o f la w andfact , to pl en ary rev ie w. Uni te d Sta tes v. Qu ar te rma in e , 91 3 F.2 d 9 10 , 91 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) . “ Purel y factua l fi nd in gs , ho wev er, wil l n otbe di sturbe d u nl es s the y

are cl earl y

erro ne ou s.” Id. “ A fin di ng of f actis cle arl y erro ne ou s o nl y

when a rev ie win g c ou rt i s l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ed mon ds on , 79 1 F .2d15 12 , 15 14 -1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) . III. Und er the Bai l Re fo rm

Act o f 19 84 , a co urt m ay rev ok e a p ers on ’s pre tri al rel eas e if , aft er a h eari ng , th e co urt fi nd s “ cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce tha t the pe rs on ha s v io la te d a ny . . . con di ti on of r el eas e” an d tha t “ th ere i s n o c on di ti on or co m bi na ti on of c on di ti on s o f rel eas e th atwil l as su re tha t the pe rs on wil l n otfle e 4 Case: 12-11269 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 4 of 7orpo se a da ng er t o t he saf ety of a ny oth er p ers on or the co m m un it y ; o r th e p ers on is un li ke ly to ab id e b y

an y co nd it io n o r co m

bi na ti on of c on di ti on s o f rel eas e.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 14 8( b) (1 )(B) , (b) (2 ). To d et erm in e whe th er a co nd it io n o r co m bi na ti on of co nd it io ns of r el eas e wil l as sure tha t the pe rs on wil l n otfle e o r po se a da ng er t o an ot he r pe rs onor t he co m m un it y , th e co urt m

us t co ns id er: (1) “ th e n atur e an d ci rcu m st an ces of the off

en se ch arg ed , in cl ud in g wh ethe r th e o ffen se is a cri m e o f vi ol en ce”; (2) “ th e wei gh t o f th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t the pe rs on ”; (3) “ th e h is to ry an d ch arac te ris ti cs of t he pe rs on ,” in cl ud in g t he pe rs on ’s ph y si cal an d m en ta l co nd it io n; an d (4 ) “ th e n atur e an d s eri ou sn es s o f th e d an ge r to an y pe rs on or t he co m m un ity th atwou ldbe po se d b y

th e p ers on ’s rel eas e.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 31 42 (g ). W in go fir starg ue s tha t the co urt erredinrev ok in g h is pre tri al rel eas e be cau se he di d n otwil lfu ll y vi ol at e th e te rm s o f hi s re le as e. He subm it s tha t h is de m en ti a, in so m

ni a, an d s ev ere h ead ach es cau se d h im to m is ta ke nl y

vi ol at e th e te rm s o f hi s re le as e. Bu t n ot hi ng inth e st atut e requi res th atth e p ers on ’s vi ol at io n of a co nd it io n o f rel eas e b e wil lfu l. Mo reo ve r, W in go co nc ed edth athe “ di d po ss es s thr ee fi rearm s an d/ orda ng ero us weap on s athi s re si de nc e,” wh ic h ex pr es sl y vi ol at edth e te rm

of h is pre tri al rel eas e th athe “refr ai n fr om po ss es si ng a

5 Case: 12-11269 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 5 of 7fir earm

. . . orot he r da ng ero us weap on s.” Thi s co nd it io n o f pr etria l re le as e was 1 al so witho utanin te ntrequi rem en t. Thu s, Wing o v io la te d t he term s o f hi s p retria l rel eas e reg ard le ss of wh ethe r he di d s o wi ll fu ll y . W in go ne xtco nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinfin di ng th athe po se d a th reatto so ci ety

su ffi ci en t t o warran t re vo cat io n o f hi s p retria l re le as e. Sp eci fic al ly, he co nt en ds th atne it he r th e m ag is tra te jud ge no r th e d is tri ctco urt he ardev id en ce es tabl is hi ng th athe ha d ahi st ory or p red is po si ti on to vi ol en ce be cau se he ha s n ev er h arm edan y on e wit h h is weap on s. In st ead , he arg ue s, h e po ss es se d h is weap on s l awfu ll y , forsp orti ng an d p ro te ct io n. Ev enif Win go ha s ne ve r harm edany on e, ho wev er, the di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si onth atW in go po se d a da ng er t o t he co m

m un it y was n otcle arl y

erro ne ou s i n l ig htof t es ti m on y th at W in go po ss es se d s ev eral weap on s i n h is ho m e d es pi te th e p res en ce o f th ree m in or ch il dr enan d t he pro ba ti onoff ic er’s t es ti m on y

th atsh e fea redforhe r sa fety at W in go ’s ho m e. Andth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g t ha t n o c on di ti on or co m bi na ti on of c on di ti on s wo ul d a ss ur e th e sa fety of t he co m

m un it y inli gh t o f th e This stipul ation, to possession of “fire arms and/or dang erous we apons,” dispense s with 1 Wingo’s argument that the Thompson/Center Ar ms .50 caliber rifle wa s not technica lly a firea rm. Wingo conc eded that the rifle wa s either a firea rm or a da

ng erous we apon, and e ither of these violates the te rms of his pretria l relea se. 6

Case: 12-11269 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 6 of 7co nc ern s the m ag is tra te jud ge ex pr es se d. Im po rta nt ly, W in go do es no t ch al le ng e th e co urt's sec on d fi nd in g, tha t h e was un li ke ly to ab id e b y an y co nd it io ns th e jud ge im po se d. Th us , eve n i f th e co urt co ul d h av e im po se d c on di ti on s tha t m ig ht ha ve en su redth e sa fety

of t he co m

m un it y if Win go co m

pl ie d, the re i s ample ev id en ce i n t he reco rdth athe wou ldbe un li ke ly to d o s o. Wing o fa il edto co m pl y with t he co nd it io n t ha t h e ref rai n fr om po ss es si ng fir earm s o r da ng ero us weap on s th e fi rs t t im e. And , bas edon hi s wi fe’s t es ti m on y th athe ha d d em en ti a, in so m ni a, an d o fte n e xh ib it edbe ha vi or s tha t h e co ul d n otco nt ro l o r rem em be r, itwas reas on ab le for

th e co urt t o c on cl ud e th athe wou ldbe un li ke ly to co m pl y with ad di ti on al co nd it io ns im

po se d. Bec au se we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n a ffi rm in g th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s ord er o f de te nt io n, we af firm . AFFIRMED.

7 Case: 12-11269 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 7 of 7