Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20111221_0002020.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-10-17 20:42:43
Document Index: 35004067

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3145', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 3145', '§ 3145', '§ 3142', '§ 3142']

Before the Court is defendant's motion for de novo review of detention order (Doc. 34), to which the government has filed a response (Doc. 30). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145, the defendant seeks de novo review of Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud's Detention Order (Doc. 13), which was entered after Judge Proud held a detention hearing on October 14, 2011. Defendant' s request is based solely on the fact that his mother requires assistance after her back surgery which was scheduled for December 14, 2011. Defendant did not request a hearing on his motion.
On September 21, 2011, defendant was charged by grand jury indictment with: one count of distribution of 28 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base ("crack"), a Schedule II Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii); three counts of distribution of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base ("crack"), a Schedule II Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C); and one count of possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing cocaine base ("crack"), a Schedule II Controlled Substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 841(b)(1)(C).
On October 14, 2011, defendant appeared before Magistrate Judge Proud for his Initial Appearance and Arraignment, at which time Magistrate Judge Proud also heard proffers from the government and defendant regarding detention (Doc. 8). Magistrate Judge Proud ordered that the defendant be detained (Doc. 13).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), "[i]f a person is ordered detained by a magistrate judge, . . . the person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation or amendment of the order." Pursuant to § 3145(b), the district court conducts a de novo review and need not defer to the magistrate's findings. See United States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 761 (7th Cir. 1985). The district court's review of the magistrate judge's decision may be conducted either by reviewing the transcript of the testimony heard by the magistrate judge, or by holding a new hearing. United States v. Torres, 929 F.2d 291, 292 (7th Cir. 1991). Based upon the bare-bones motion filed by defendant (in which he does not specifically request a hearing), this Court will exercise its discretion, and elects to review the transcript of the hearing held on October 14, 2011, before Magistrate Judge Proud, and make a determination without a hearing or additional argument.
Under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, a defendant shall be detained before trial if no condition or combination of conditions will not reasonably assure (1) the defendant's appearance as required and (2) the safety of any other person and the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The government carries the burden of proving that defendant is either a flight risk or a danger to the community, but the government need not prove both. See United States v. Daniels, 772 F.2d 382, 383 (7th Cir. 1985). To determine whether the government has carried its burden, the Court shall consider the information available regarding the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), including: