United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville
ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING REVOCATION
Clifford Shirley, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge.
case came before the Court on November 2, 2017, following
Defendant Michael L. Ramsey, Jr's initial appearance on
the Petition for Warrant for Offender under Supervision [Doc.
38] and a subsequent detention hearing to determine the
Defendant's release status pending his November 21, 2017
revocation hearing before Chief United States District Judge
Thomas A. Varlan. Assistant United States Attorney Tracy L.
Stone was present on behalf of the Government. Assistant
Federal Defender Jonathan A. Moffatt represented the
Defendant, who was also present. The Defendant sought release
pending his revocation hearing, proceeded by proffer, and
argued that conditions, such as returning to his job and
residence, and electronic monitoring, would assure the Court
that he would not flee or be a danger to anyone in the
Government asked the Court to detain the Defendant pending
his revocation hearing, arguing that he is a danger to the
community. In support of this argument, the Government noted
that the Defendant would not be a good candidate for release
based on the allegations in the revocation petition, his
lengthy prior criminal history, his recent prior revocation,
and his prior positive drug test. For the reasons discussed
below, the Court finds that Defendant Ramsey must be
shall order that a defendant appearing for an alleged
violation of supervised release be detained unless it finds
by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not
likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of others or
the community, if released. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a); Fed. R.
Crim. P. 32.1(6)(a). The defendant bears the burden of
showing that he will not flee or pose a danger to others or
the community. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(6)(a).
Court has considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(g) and finds that they weigh in favor of
detention. The nature and circumstances of the alleged
violations in this case involve continued drug use, including
testing positive for methamphetamine on July 28, 2017.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1). Additionally, the
Defendant has a history of absconding and not being able to
be supervised, a significant criminal history that includes
bank robbery (the conviction leading to his supervised
release), and a prior revocation last year. See 18
U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3). The Court finds that
characteristics, such as the Defendant's past conduct,
drug use, and criminal history, all weigh in favor of
detention. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3).
final factor looks to the nature and seriousness of the
danger that would be posed by the Defendant's release.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(4). In this regard, the
Court finds that the Defendant's continued drug use,
refusal to seek and/or complete drug treatment, and failure
to appear for drug screens in the past few months pose a
great danger to the community. Ultimately, the Court finds
that these actions of the Defendant speak louder than his
promises to comply with conditions, if he was released again.
Moreover, the Court finds that the conditions offered by the
Defendant appear to be the same circumstances under which he
was living when he tested positive for drugs and committed
the alleged violations. The Court would also note that the
Probation Officer was unable to communicate with Defendant or
to locate him at the residence where he was supposed to be
living during his term of supervision. As of October 26,
2017, the Probation Officer was not certain where the
Defendant was located.
Defendant has failed to carry his burden of showing that he
is not a flight risk or danger to the community. The Court is
not persuaded in this regard, much less by clear and
convincing evidence, and finds to the contrary that the
Defendant does pose a serious risk of flight, absconding, and
non-appearance and poses a danger to the community.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Defendant has not
carried his burden of proof and further that no condition or
combination of conditions of release exist that could
reasonably assure the safety of the community. Therefore, the
Defendant is ORDERED DETAINED pending his
Defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General
or his designated representative for confinement in a
correction 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. The
Defendant is ORDERED to appear for a
revocation hearing before Chief Judge Varlan on
November 21, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Defendant waived his right to have
a preliminary ...