AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CASE NO: 08-20444

v

DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

PAUL NUTALL MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

/

ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

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

held. I find that the following facts require the detention of the Defendant pending trial in this case.

Part I—Findings of Fact

Does not apply.

Alternative Findings (A)

Does not apply.

Alternative Findings (B)

There is a serious risk that the Defendant will not appear.

Part II—Written Statement of Reasons for Detention

The Government moves for detention pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142 and states that none of the

presumptions in favor of detention apply. I therefore consider the Defendant’s circumstances under

the factors set forth in subsection § 3142(g). 

As to the factors set forth in subsection (g)(1) and (g)(2), I find that the offense charged

involves the passing of fraudulent checks. The grand jury having returned an Indictment, I find there

is a definite weight of evidence supporting the charges against the Defendant.

As to § 3142(g)(3), I find that the Defendant is currently 40 years of age. The Defendant lived

in the Vassar, Michigan, area for approximately of 15 years, most recently with his girlfriend, who is

1:08-cr-20444-TLL-CEB Doc # 13 Filed 07/13/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 27
also described in the Pretrial Services report as his fiancée. However, for the seven months

immediately preceding his arrest on these charges, the Defendant had been living in Texas. The

Pretrial Services report also states that the Defendant has used at least two different dates of birth,

two different Social Security numbers and at least one alias. 

In August, 2007, a warrant was issued for the Defendant’s failure to appear at a pretrial

conference on a charge of identity theft in Tuscola County. Three weeks later, the Defendant was

charged with felony flight to avoid prosecution. One month later, three civil warrants were filed in Bay

County against the Defendant for failure to appear on charges of delinquent child support. In 1993,

the Defendant was convicted of theft in Texas, and was sentenced to one year of custody. The

length of this sentence indicates that the charge against the Defendant was a felony. In November, 

2005, the Defendant was charged with obstructing justice. He pled guilty to a reduced charge and

paid a fine. In 2007, the Defendant was charged with felony forgery and counterfeiting. A bench

warrant was issued for the Defendant’s failure to appear for a pretrial conference. This warrant is one

of the warrants earlier described.

The Assistant United States Attorney proffers that the Defendant has, in effect, been a fugitive

from justice for at least a year prior to his apprehension on these charges. While I appreciate the fact

that the Defendant’s mental health problems can be controlled through the use of medication, I am

forced to conclude that the Defendant poses a serious risk of flight due to his failure to appear on

multiple occasions, his use of aliases, false Social Security numbers and false birth dates. 

Furthermore, although the Defendant’s girlfriend is willing to act as a third-party custodian, it is clear

to me from the Defendant’s own conduct that it would be inappropriate to place upon any third-party

custodian the unique combination of responsibilities that would be required under the Bail Reform Act

in this case. In addition, these charges are likely the most serious criminal charges the Defendant

has ever faced, and I conclude that if given the opportunity, there is a very high likelihood that the

Defendant would flee, as he has done in the past. As a result, I find there are no conditions nor any

combination of conditions which I believe would reasonably assure the Defendants appearance. 

Accordingly, the Government’s motion to detain will be granted.

1:08-cr-20444-TLL-CEB Doc # 13 Filed 07/13/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 28
Part III—Directions Regarding Detention

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 of the corrections facility

shall deliver the Defendant to the United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: July 13, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically filed this date, electronically served on Shane

Waller and Ken Sasse, and served on Pretrial Services and the U.S. Marshal’s Service by other

electronic means.

Date: July 13, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

1:08-cr-20444-TLL-CEB Doc # 13 Filed 07/13/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 29