IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case No. 11-cr-00355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v.

WAUNITA WEINGART

Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION 

THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on August 30, 2013.

Present were the following: Martha Paluch, Assistant United States Attorney, Martin Stuart,

counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court carefully considered the entire court file

and the comments of counsel.

The Court has concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no condition or

combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant,

based upon the attached findings.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant is committed to the custody of the

Attorney General or their 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; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is to be afforded a reasonable

opportunity to consult confidentially with defense counsel; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon order of this Court or on request of an attorney

for the United States of America, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver

defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with this

proceeding.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 329 filed 08/30/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 5
DATED and ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2013.

By the Court:

s/Craig B. Shaffer

Craig B. Shaffer

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 329 filed 08/30/13 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 5
United States v. Waunita Weingart 

Case Number 11-cr-00355-MSK 

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS

FOR ORDER OF DETENTION

This matter comes before the court on the government’s motion for revocation pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b). That statute provides that a judicial officer shall enter an order of

revocation and detention if, after a hearing, the judicial officer finds that there is

(A) probable cause to believe that the person has committed a

Federal, State or local crime while on release; or

(B) clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated any

other condition of release; and

(2) finds that –

(A) based on the facts set forth in section 3142(g) of this title, there

is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will

assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of

any other person or the community; or 

(B) the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination

of conditions of release

The Bail Reform Act, 18. U.S.C. § 3142(g), directs the court to consider the following

factors in determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the

appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person and the community:

(1) [t]he 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

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 329 filed 08/30/13 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 5
(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that

would be posed by the person’s release.

In making my findings of fact, I have taken judicial notice of the information set forth in

the court file, and have considered the comments of counsel during the hearing on August 30,

2013. I specifically note that during that hearing, defense counsel stated that his client was not

contesting the government request for revocation. 

Weighing the statutory factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b) and 18 U.S.C, § 3142(g), I

conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant violated one or more

conditions of release. Specifically, it appears to be uncontested that the defendant left the

District of Colorado without prior court permission some time between July 2 and July 9, 2013,

which constitutes a violation of bond conditions. The defendant subsequently was arrested on or

about July 12, 2013 in the Southern District of California.

 Weighing all of the information presently available to the court, I conclude that the

defendant is either unwilling or unable to comply with all conditions of pretrial release, and

therefore, the court will grant the government’s motion to revoke bond.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 329 filed 08/30/13 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 5
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 329 filed 08/30/13 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 5