United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Chattanooga
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER H. STEGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
DAVIS (“Defendant”) came before the Court for an
initial appearance on August 8, 2019, in accordance with Rule
32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on the
Amended Petition for Warrant for Offender under Supervision
(“Petition”) [Doc. 67].
being sworn in due form of law, Defendant was informed of his
privilege against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment
and his right to counsel under the 6th Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
Court determined Defendant wanted to be represented by an
attorney and that he qualified for the appointment of an
attorney to represent him at government expense.
Consequently, the Court APPOINTED Attorney
Chris Lanier to represent Defendant.
was furnished with a copy of the Petition, and had an
opportunity to review that document with his attorney. The
Court determined that Defendant was able to read and
understand the Petition with the assistance of his counsel.
In addition, AUSA Perry Piper explained to Defendant the
specific charges contained in the Petition. Defendant
acknowledged that he understood the charges in the Petition.
Government moved Defendant be detained pending disposition of
the Petition or further Order of this Court. The Court
explained Defendant's right to a preliminary hearing and
detention hearing and what those hearings entail. Defendant
conferred with his counsel and requested a preliminary and
detention hearing. The Court scheduled the hearings on August
13, 2019, at 10:30 a.m.
undersigned conducted a preliminary hearing and detention
hearing at the scheduled time on Tuesday, August 13, 2019.
The Government was represented by AUSA Chris Poole. Defendant
was represented by Attorney Chris Lanier. The Government
relied upon the allegations in the Petition [Doc. 67] and the
testimony of U.S. Probation Officer Courtney Hambel. The
Petition includes a recitation of the violations of
conditions of supervision committed by Defendant, to
wit, Defendant must not illegally possess a controlled
substance; Defendant must report to the probation office in
the federal judicial district where Defendant is authorized
to reside within 72 hours of release from imprisonment unless
the probation officer instructs Defendant to report to a
different probation office or within a different time frame;
Defendant must work full time at lawful employment unless the
probation officer excuses him from doing so. If Defendant
does not have a full-time employment, he must try to find
full-time employment unless the probation officer excuses him
from doing so; Defendant must not communicate or interact
with someone he knows is engaged in criminal activity;
Defendant shall participate in a program of testing and
treatment for drug/or alcohol abuse as directed by the
probation officer until such time as Defendant is released
from the program by the probation officer; Defendant shall
not commit another federal, state or local crime.
Petition further sets forth a summary of facts, which facts
were testified to by USPO Hambel. In summary, Defendant
tested positive for some combination of cocaine, marijuana
and/or methamphetamine on three separate occasions; he failed
to show up for mandatory drug tests on two occasions; he did
not obtain employment; and, while on federal supervision, he
was convicted of a state felony charge of criminal
responsibility for facilitation of a felony (arising out of
the robbery of a Boost Mobile store).
Court finds that the evidence establishes that probable cause
exists to support the various violations of conditions of
supervised release specified in the Petition [Doc.67]. With
respect to the detention hearing, the undersigned is
obligated to start with the rebuttable presumption that
Defendant is a danger to any other person or to the community
and that he poses a risk of flight. Based on the evidence
adduced at the hearing, the Court concludes that Defendant
violated the conditions of supervised release. The Court
further finds that Defendant has not carried the burden of
establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he does
not pose a danger to any other person or to the community or
that he is not a risk of flight. Consequently, the Court
GRANTED the Government's oral motion to
detain Defendant pending disposition of the Petition or
further order of this Court.
therefore, ORDERED that:
1. The evidence establishes that probable cause exists to
support the violations of supervised release specified in the
Petition [Doc. 67].
2. The Government's motion that Defendant be
DETAINED WITHOUT BAIL pending further Order
of this Court is GRANTED.
3. The United States Marshal's service shall make
arrangements for Defendant to be transported to appear before
United States District Judge Curtis Collier on
October 9, ...