UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 00-20016

v. DISTRICT JUDGE DAVID M. LAWSON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

DAMEON RUSSELL,

Defendant.

/

ORDER AFTER INITIAL APPEARANCE

PURSUANT TO RULE 32.1 OF THE FEDERAL RULES

OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

I. Introduction and Initial Appearance

Defendant Dameon Russell was arrested on a warrant for supervised release

violation issued by United States District Judge David M. Lawson. Defendant was

previously convicted of Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(d). Defendant requested appointment of counsel and completed

a financial affidavit. After review of the affidavit, it was determined that Defendant

qualified for appointment of counsel and the Court directed that counsel be appointed. 

 Defendant appeared with appointed counsel on April 19, 2010, for his initial

appearance on allegations of supervised release violations. At that time, Defendant was

given the advisement of rights as provided in Rule 32.1(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure.
1

18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2)(B) states that the court “shall order” detention “unless . . . the judicial

officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any

other person or the community.” The statute also requires that the court find a substantial likelihood that

a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted or that the government has recommended no sentence

of imprisonment be imposed on the person. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2)(A)(I) and (ii). However, since I find

Defendant cannot meet the requirements of subsection (B), I need not consider those in subsection (A).

2

II. Release or Detention

Pending further proceedings, the Government moved to detain the Defendant.

Rule 32.1(a)(6) gives this magistrate judge the authority to release or detain a person

charged with supervised release violations under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a). The statute

establishes a presumption in favor of detention that is rebuttable only upon a showing by

the defendant, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she is not likely to flee or

pose a danger to any other person or the community. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.1(a)(6).

Moreover, since Defendant Russell has been convicted of a violation of the Controlled

Substances Act for which the sentence is greater than 10 years’ imprisonment, 18 U.S.C.

§§ 3143(a)(2) and 3142(f)(1)(C) give rise to a separate rebuttable presumption that there

are no conditions which will reasonably assure the safety of the community.1

Defense counsel advised the Court that in light of a recently filed Indictment which

contains drug possession and distribution charges, Defendant waived his right to a

detention hearing. The Court confirmed this waiver with Defendant Russell through a

series of direct questions.

III. Preliminary Hearing

If a person charged with supervised release violations is detained at the initial

appearance, the court must promptly conduct a hearing to determine whether there is
3

probable cause to believe that a violation occurred, unless the hearing is waived. FED.

R. CRIM. P. 32.1(b)(1)(A).

The Petition in this case charges that Defendant committed six (6) violations of

mandatory conditions; and violated standard condition #7 on six (6) occasions. After

consultation with counsel, the Court was advised by defense counsel that the Defendant

waived his right to the preliminary hearing. This waiver was confirmed by direct

questioning of Defendant Russell.

IV. Conclusions and Recommendation

1. I find that Defendant has made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right

to a detention hearing. 

2. I find that Defendant has made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right

to a preliminary hearing under FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.1(b)(1)(A).

3. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant be DETAINED until the time of

his revocation hearing before Judge Lawson. Defendant shall be held in

custody by the United States Marshal’s Service and produced for that

hearing as directed. 

V. Review

Review of this order is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3145 and E.D. Mich. L.R. 57.2.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: April 20, 2010 United States Magistrate Judge
4

CERTIFICATION

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

Janet Parker and Robert Dunn, and served on Probation Officer John Wright and the U.S.

Marshal’s office in Bay City in the traditional manner.

Date: April 20, 2010 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder