UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. ) CAUSE NO.: 1:15-CR-26-TLS

)

CAMARI STINSON )

OPINION AND ORDER

The Defendant, Camari Stinson, is charged with three counts: (1) Felon in Possession of a 

Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); (2) Distribution of a Controlled Substance, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and (3) Carrying a Firearm During and in Relation to a Drug 

Trafficking Crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). This matter is before the Court on the 

Defendant’s Motion for Review (Appeal) of Detention Order [ECF No. 55] pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3145(b), which provides for district court review, upon motion by the defendant, of a 

Magistrate Judge’s detention order.

The government requested the detention of the Defendant pending trial on grounds that 

the Defendant was a danger to the community and presented a serious risk of flight. At the 

arraignment on June 4, 2015, the Defendant, represented by counsel, waived his right to a 

detention hearing. [ECF No. 14.] The Defendant was ordered detained pending trial. [ECF No. 

15.] On May 20, 2016, the Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Amendment of 

Detention Order [ECF No. 43], arguing that he should not be detained because he was not a 

flight risk. On June 1, 2015, Magistrate Judge Susan Collins conducted an evidentiary hearing.

After the hearing, the Magistrate Judge denied the Defendant’s motion for release pending trial, 

finding that he posed a serious flight risk. The Magistrate Judge based her findings on the fact 

that the Defendant “on a number of occasions has violated the terms and conditions of release 
2

previously imposed by various courts; and Defendant committed the charged crime while he was 

on supervision.” (Am. Order of Detention Pending Trial 3, ECF No. 47.) The Magistrate Judge 

also based her findings on the Defendant’s past conduct, criminal history, and lack of 

employment or educational pursuits at the time of arrest. (Id.) In conclusion, the Magistrate 

Judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that:

the totality of Defendant's past conduct while on probation, parole, 

or home detention indicates that there is no condition or combination 

of conditions that are currently proposed or available to the Court 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c) that will sufficiently ameliorate the risk 

of nonappearance posed by the Defendant if he was released.

(Id.) The Defendant filed this motion [ECF No. 55] on October 26, 2016. The Government filed 

its response on October 31, 2016. Time for the Defendant to reply elapsed on November 10, 

2016. The motion is ripe for ruling.

A defendant may file a motion seeking review or revocation of a detention order when 

the defendant has been “ordered detained by a magistrate judge, or by a person other than a judge 

of a court having original jurisdiction over the offense and other than a Federal appellate court.” 

18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). In reviewing detention orders, a district court conducts a de novo review.

United States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 761 (7th Cir. 1985). However, a district court may review 

a magistrate’s detention order without holding a new hearing. United States v. Sophie, 900 F.2d 

1064, 1070 (7th Cir. 1990) (“An evidentiary hearing is necessary only if the party requesting the 

hearing raises a significant disputed factual issue.”).

The Bail Reform Act requires a judicial officer to order pretrial release on personal 

recognizance or upon the execution of an unsecured appearance bond “unless the judicial officer 

determines that such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required 

or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b). If such 
3

unconditional release will not reasonably assure appearance or will endanger safety, then the 

judicial officer must consider a number of conditions to accompany the release order. Id. § 

3142(c). However, if after a hearing pursuant to § 3142(f) the judicial officer finds that no 

condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as 

required and the safety of any other person and the community, then the judicial officer shall 

order detention pending trial. Id. § 3142(e). In cases where probable cause exists that a defendant

committed an offense under § 924(c), there is a presumption, subject to rebuttal by the defendant, 

that no condition or combination of conditions will assure the defendant’s appearance and the 

safety of the community. Id. § 3142(e)(3)(B); Portes, 786 F.2d at 762. Where no presumption 

exists, the United States bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that a 

defendant is at risk for flight. Portes, 786 F.2d at 765. Where a presumption does exist, the 

defendant must meet a “burden of production by coming forward with some evidence that he 

will not flee or endanger the community if released.” United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 

707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quotations removed).

The Defendant requests the Court review the transcript of the June 1, 2016, hearing and 

Pretrial Services Report [ECF No. 12]. The Defendant argues that he is not at risk for flight 

because he resides with his mother in Fort Wayne, has children in the city that he pays child 

support for, and maintains significant ties to the area. The Defendant further contends that he has 

demonstrated a willingness to appear because during his prior contacts with the criminal justice 

system he appeared in court on at least 10 occasions, failing to appear only once. The 

government opposes his motion.

The Court has reviewed the record, examined the factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), 

and weighed the evidence according to the standards noted above. Pursuant to the evidence, the 
4

Court finds that there is a serious risk that the Defendant will flee. The most relevant factors 

were those noted by the Magistrate Judge pertaining to the Defendant’s past performance on 

supervision, his commission of the charged crime while on supervision, and his extensive 

criminal history.

The factors to be considered in determining whether there are conditions of release that 

will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant and the safety of any other person and the 

community fit into four general categories and take into account the available information 

concerning: 

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including 

whether the offense is a crime of violence or involves a narcotic 

drug; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the 

history and characteristics of the person, including—(A) the 

person’s character, physical and mental condition, family ties, 

employment, financial resources, length of residence in the 

community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug 

or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning 

appearance at court proceedings; and (B) whether, at the time of the 

current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or 

on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of 

sentence for an offense under federal, state, or local law; and (4) the 

nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community 

that would be posed by the person’s release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

According to the report, the Defendant indicated that he was “fairly certain” that his 

mother would permit him to reside with her if he was released. (Pretrial Services Report 1, ECF 

No. 12.) However, the PSR does not verify that he would be permitted to continue to live with 

his mother if he were released. The Defendant’s argument that his care for his children 

ameliorates his risk of nonappearance is also unavailing. The Defendant owes child support and 

is significantly in arrears with these payments. The Court is unpersuaded that living in Fort 

Wayne will ensure the Defendant’s appearance. Given these circumstances, the Court is not 
5

confident that there are any conditions of release that would reasonably assure the Defendant’s 

appearance at proceedings for the federal offenses he is now charged with committing. Even if 

he were to remain in Fort Wayne, the Court does not find that the Defendant’s ties to this area 

offset his track record on supervision. The Defendant has a documented history of committing 

violations while on supervision. Accordingly, the Court finds, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance 

of the Defendant as required for the resolution of this criminal case. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion for Review 

(Appeal) of Detention Order [ECF No. 55]. 

SO ORDERED on December 5, 2016.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT