Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Ford

February 28, 2006


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Robert E. Blackburn


On February 24, 2006, the matter was before me for hearing on 1) the Government's Motion To Join in Defendant's Motion for Revocation of Order of Conditions of Release And Motion To Detain Defendant 18 U.S.C. §§ 3145(a)(1) and 3142(e) and (g) [#47] filed February 2, 2006, and 2) the defendant's Motion To Amend Release Order [#34] filed February 24, 2006. I deny the government's motion,*fn1 and I grant the defendant's motion.

In fashioning my ruling subsequent to de novo review, I have 1) judicially noticed all relevant adjudicative facts in the file and record of this action pro tanto, including, but not limited to the relevant proceedings conducted before Magistrate Judge Watanabe on November 30, 2005, and January 9, 2006; 2) considered the evidence presented at the hearings conducted on January 9, 2006, see Transcript [#24], and on February 24, 2006; 3) considered the reasons stated, arguments advanced, and authorities cited by the parties in their papers and oral argument; and 4) considered the written and oral recommendations of pretrial services. Accordingly, I enter the following findings of fact (which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, unless indicated otherwise), conclusions of law, and orders.*fn2


The defendant's history, residence, family background, family ties, employment history, financial resources, criminal record, and health are as stated in the pretrial services report.*fn3 In summary, this information establishes that the defendant is a long-time law abiding resident of and property owner in Denver, Colorado, who has been responsibly and gainfully employed throughout his adult life.

On August 11, 2004, the grand jury returned a four-count indictment in which the defendant was charged with the following serious firearm related felony offenses: Counts 1, 2, and 3 -- Transfer and Possession of a Machine Gun, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o); and Count 4 -- Possession of Firearm with Removed and Obliterated Serial Number, 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). The dates of the alleged offenses range from April 22, 2005, to November 21, 2005. The weight of the evidence against the defendant is at least preponderant.

The defendant is not likely to flee the jurisdiction.

The defendant's criminal history is free of assaultive or minatory conduct.

The defendant has no reported failures to appear in court.

The defendant was not 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.

The defendant has complied and is likely to comply with conditions of bond necessary to assure his appearance before the court in this case.

Since November 30, 2005, defendant has been released on bail in the amount of $30,000 secured by a real property bond that is subject to mandatory, standard, and special conditions of release, including, but not limited to residence in a community correctional facility. Since November 30, 2005, the defendant has resided without incident in not one, but two community correctional facilities.

Additionally, the defendant does not pose a danger to the community if released without residence in a community correctional facility as a special condition of release. All of the evidence educed by the government during the February 24, 2006, hearing on the issue of dangerousness was known and available to the government by November 30, 2005, when it stipulated to the defendant's release in lieu of detention. Given the defendant's exemplary behavior subsequent to his release on bail without so much as a proverbial hiccup, it borders on disingenuous for the government to now claim that the defendant is now so dangerous soas to warrant a revocation of his bail followed immediately by his incarceration pending trial.*fn4

Subsequent to its ongoing and evolving review of the totality of circumstances, pretrial services recommended credibly and cogently both as of January 6, 2006,*fn5 and February 24, 2006,*fn6 that defendant continue to be released on bail and bond without the special ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.