WO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America 

v. 

Danielle Jean Fisher 

ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

Case Number: CR-15-01212-01-PHX-SRB 

In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. ' 3142(f), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the 

following facts are established:(Check one or both, as applicable.) 

☒ by clear and convincing evidence the defendant is a danger to the community and require the detention of the 

defendant pending trial in this case. 

☒ by a preponderance of the evidence the defendant is a serious flight risk and require the detention of the 

defendant pending trial in this case. 

PART I -- FINDINGS OF FACT 

☐ (1) 18 U.S.C. '3142 (e)(2)(A): The defendant has been convicted of a (federal offense)(state or local 

offense that would have been a federal offense if a circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had 

existed) that is: 

☐ a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. ' 3156(a)(4). 

☐ an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death. 

☐ an offense for which the maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is 

prescribed___________________1

☐ a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal 

offenses described in 18 U.S.C. ' 3142(f)(1)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses. 

☐ any felony that involves a minor victim or that involves the possession or use of a firearm or 

destructive device (as those terms are defined in section 921), or any other dangerous weapon, or 

involves a failure to register under 18 U.S.C. '2250. 

☐ (2) 18 U.S.C. '3142(e)(2)(B): The offense described in finding 1 was committed while the defendant was 

on release pending trial for a federal, state or local offense. 

☐ (3) 18 U.S.C. '3142(e)(2)(C): A period of not more than five years has elapsed since the (date of 

conviction)(release of the defendant from imprisonment) for the offense described in finding 1. 

☐ (4) Findings Nos. (1), (2) and (3) establish a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of 

conditions will reasonably assure the safety of (an) other person(s) and the community. I further find 

that the defendant has not rebutted this presumption. 

Alternative Findings

☒ (1) 18 U.S.C. 3142(e)(3): There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense: 

 

1

Insert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. ' 801 et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export 

Act (21 U.S.C. ' 951 et seq.); or (c) Section 1 of Act of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. ' 955a).

Case 2:15-cr-01212-SRB Document 22 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 3
☒ for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in the Controlled 

Substances Act (21 U.S.C. ' 801 et seq.);1 

☐ under 18 U.S.C. ' 924(c), 956(a), or 2332b. 

☐ under 18 U.S.C. 1581-1594, for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years or more is 

prescribed. 

☐ an offense involving a minor victim under section _______________________.2

☒ (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding 1 that no condition or 

combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the 

safety of the community. 

Alternative Findings 

☒ (1) There is a serious risk that the defendant will flee; no condition or combination of conditions will 

reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. 

☒ (2) No condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of others and the 

community. 

☐ (3) There is a serious risk that the defendant will (obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice) (threaten, injure, or 

intimidate a prospective witness or juror). 

☐ (4) 

PART II -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(Check one or both, as applicable.)

☒ (1) I find that the credible testimony and information3 submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and 

convincing evidence as to danger that: 

The defendant has significant history of substance abuse and reported long term daily use of 

methamphetamine and nearly daily use of marijuana. The defendant tested positive for 

methamphetamine and marijuana. Her criminal history includes numerous charges that appear related 

to substance abuse, such as public intoxication. Therefore, the Court finds that the defendant has 

significant and continuing substance abuse issues that pose a danger to the community. In addition, the 

government proffered that the alleged sales of methamphetamine were to an undercover agent and were 

recorded. Therefore, the strength of the evidence weights in favor of detention and further supports the 

finding that the defendant poses a risk of danger. The defendant’s criminal history also includes 

charges for failure to appear and convictions for disobedience of a court order. Therefore, the Court 

finds that the defendant is unlikely to abide by court orders and appear in court and thus poses a flight 

risk. 

☒ (2) I find that a preponderance of the evidence as to risk of flight that: 

☐ The defendant has no significant contacts in the District of Arizona. 

 

2

Insert as applicable 18 U.S.C. ''1201, 1591,2241-42, 2244(a)(1), 2245, 2251, 2251A, 2252(a)(1), 2252(a)(2), 2252(a)(3, 

2252(a)(4), 2260, 2421, 2422, 2423, or 2425.

3

The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of 

information at the [detention] hearing. 18 U.S.C. ' 3142(f). See 18 U.S.C. ' 3142(g) for the factors to be taken into account.

Case 2:15-cr-01212-SRB Document 22 Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 3
☒ The defendant has no resources in the United States from which he/she might make a bond 

reasonably calculated to assure his/her future appearance. 

☒ The defendant has a prior criminal history. 

☒ There is a record of prior failure to appear in court as ordered. 

☐ The defendant attempted to evade law enforcement contact by fleeing from law enforcement. 

☐ The defendant is facing a minimum mandatory of incarceration and a 

maximum of . 

☐ The defendant does not dispute the information contained in the Pretrial Services Report, except: 

☐ In addition: 

 

The Court incorporates by reference the findings of the Pretrial Services Agency which were reviewed by the 

Court at the time of the hearing in this matter. 

PART III -- DIRECTIONS REGARDING DETENTION

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his/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. 

PART IV -- APPEALS AND THIRD PARTY RELEASE

IT IS ORDERED that should an appeal of this detention order be filed with the District Court, it is counsel’s 

responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion for review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the 

hearing set before the District Court. Pursuant to Rule 59(a), FED.R.CRIM.P., effective December 1, 2009, Defendant 

shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this order or after the oral order is stated on the record 

within which to file specific written objections with the district court. Failure to timely file objections in accordance 

with Rule 59(a) may waive the right to review. 59(a), FED.R.CRIM.P. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it is counsel’s responsibility 

to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing before the District Court to allow Pretrial Services an 

opportunity to interview and investigate the potential third party custodian. 

Dated this 6th day of November, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cr-01212-SRB Document 22 Filed 11/09/15 Page 3 of 3