UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 08-cr-132-01-SM

Shawn McGrath

O R D E R

On November 15, 2011, the defendant appeared for both a 

bail revocation hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148, and an

initial appearance on a superceding petition charging six 

violations of supervised release (doc. no. 22). Defendant is on 

release from his April 10, 2009, conviction for False 

Representation of a Social Security Number.

The original petition contained five separate allegations 

that defendant committed the crime of illegal possession and use 

of controlled drugs (doc. no. 13). At defendant’s bail hearing 

on the original petition, the court ordered the defendant 

detained until he could be released into an inpatient drug 

treatment facility. On October 31, 2011, defendant was released 

into the Phoenix House program. Defendant did not dispute that, 

on November 11, 2011, he was unsuccessfully discharged from the 

Phoenix House for violating program rules. Apparently, 

defendant was seen by Phoenix House staff listening to (or 

Case 1:08-cr-00132-SM Document 25 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 3
2

appearing to listen to) a confidential therapy session. 

Defendant did not dispute that he had violated the program’s 

strict rules regarding confidentiality.

The superceding petition adds one charge stemming from 

defendant’s unsuccessful discharge from Phoenix House. The 

charge underlying the government’s request for bail revocation 

stems from the same set of facts. Defendant conceded the 

government had evidence sufficient to establish its burden under 

U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1), but contested bail revocation under § 

3148(b)(2). Likewise, the defendant waived a probable cause 

determination on the new supervised release charge and argued 

for release under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1. Thus, the only 

question before the court was whether to release the defendant. 

The hearing proceeded by offers of proof. Following the 

hearing, the court issued its ruling orally from the bench and 

explained in detail the bases for the court's decision to detain 

the defendant. For all of the reasons stated on the record, and 

based on the arguments of counsel, the court found that 

defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination 

of conditions of release, 18 U.S.C. § 3148(a)(2)(B), and that 

revocation of bail is warranted. The conditions of release are 

therefore revoked.

Case 1:08-cr-00132-SM Document 25 Filed 11/17/11 Page 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney 

General or her 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

Date: November 17, 2011

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Alfred J.T. Rubega, Esq.

U.S. Probation

U.S. Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00132-SM Document 25 Filed 11/17/11 Page 3 of 3