UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 03-cr-076-01-JD

William Pineo

O R D E R

On April 30, 2013, defendant appeared for a preliminary 

hearing/probable cause hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1, on 

three alleged violations of conditions of supervision, as 

charged in the government's petition dated April 30, 2009 (doc. 

no. 42). Defendant is on supervised release from his

convictions in 2003 for three counts of interstate 

transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 2312, and two counts of theft of government property, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. 

The government alleges that, while on supervised release, 

defendant violated the conditions of his release by committing 

the crimes of receiving stolen property and burglary. At the 

preliminary hearing, United States Probation Officer Timothy J. 

Brown testified for the government. The government introduced 

certified copies of defendant’s convictions on the state charges 

underlying the allegations in the supervised release petition. 

Defense counsel conceded that, in light of the convictions, 

defendant faced a difficult challenge with respect to the 
2

question of whether there was probable cause for the charges in 

the petition. Following the hearing, the court issued an order 

orally from the bench finding that the government's evidence 

established probable cause that defendant violated the 

conditions as charged in the petition.

Defendant sought bail conditions under Rule 32.1(a)(6). The 

government sought detention. Under Rule 32.1(a)(6), defendant 

bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing

evidence that he will not flee and that he poses no danger to 

any other person or to the community. Based on the evidence 

presented at today's hearing, and for the reasons stated on the 

record, defendant has failed to meet his burden of persuading 

the court that he poses no danger to any other person or to the 

community. A brief summary follows.

In 2003, defendant pled guilty in this court to multiple 

charges related to stolen vehicles. Judge DiClerico sentenced 

defendant to thirty-nine months imprisonment with a three-year 

term of supervised release. Defendant’s first period of 

supervision began on January 7, 2006. Approximately seven 

months later, defendant was arrested on state charges related to 

his unauthorized use of a car and a dealer plate. In addition 

to defendant’s conviction for that conduct in state court, Judge 

DiClerico revoked his federal supervision and ordered him to 

serve an eight-month prison sentence, followed by a twenty-
3

eight-month period of supervised release. Defendant was 

released for his second period of supervision on October 7, 

2007, and in April 2009, he was again arrested on charges 

related to stolen vehicles. These charges are the subject of 

the instant petition. Notably, with respect to his propensity 

for violence, defendant admitted that he set fire to one of the 

subject vehicles while the vehicle was in the police 

department’s impoundment lot and acted with a purpose to destroy 

evidence linking him to that stolen vehicle. Defendant was 

convicted in state court on multiple charges, including arson,

related to the April 2009 conduct.

Defendant has been serving his state prison sentence on 

those convictions since his arrest in April 2009. The warrant 

on the supervised release petition was issued in April 2009 but 

was not served on defendant until the completion of his prison 

sentence. Defendant argued that he was entitled to release both 

because he had served a lengthy prison sentence for the crimes 

and had been of good behavior while in prison. While defendant 

is to be commended for his good behavior while in prison, that 

evidence is insufficient to meet the burden of proof on 

dangerousness. To the contrary, defendant’s criminal history is 

persuasive evidence that he is unwilling to abide by the law and 

is, instead, willing to commit violent acts to cover up his 

criminal conduct. 
4

In sum, the court finds that defendant failed to meet his

burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that his

release, even on strict conditions, would pose no danger to any 

other person or the community. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 

the defendant be detained pending a final revocation hearing. 

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. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Landya B. McCafferty

United States Magistrate Judge

May 1, 2013

 

cc: David Bownes, Esq.

Terry Ollila, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation