United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR BOND [#23]
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, District Judge.
Defendant Sonny Phillips filed the instant Motion for Review of Detention Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3145 ("section 3145") on January, 15, 2015. See Dkt. No. 23. In the Motion, Defendant requests that this Court "promptly review the Detention Order of the Magistrate Judge in this case and grant [Defendant's] request for bond pending trial." Id.
Section 3145 dictates that "[t]he motion shall be determined promptly." 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). Accordingly, the Court instructed the Government to file a Response to Defendant's Motion no later than January 23, 2015. See Dkt. No. 24. The Government timely filed its Response. See Dkt. No. 26. The Court conducted a hearing on the matter on February 5, 2015. For the reasons discussed herein, and the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Bond.
Sonny Phillips appeared for arraignment on September 19, 2014. Mr. Phillips was arrested and temporarily detained on that date. A detention hearing took place on September 22, 2014 before Magistrate Judge Donald Scheer. The recommendation by the Pretrial Services Agency was detention. AUSA Andrew Lievense also recommended detention. Magistrate Judge Scheer, in entering a Detention Order Pending Trial, concluded:
Defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the community. He is charged as a felon in possession of a firearm (18 USC §922(g)(1). The evidence is very strong and includes eye-witness police testimony as well as the loaded firearm observed to be in Defendant's possession and recovered in the course of his apprehension. Defendant has three (3) prior felony convictions, including drug dealing (age 18); Robbery (age 19) and Assault w/Bodily Harm Less than Murder (age 21). He has violated probation three (3) times and is subject to two (2) outstanding warrants for failure to appear in court. MDOC classifies him as an absconder. Defendant has no employment, income or assets. He has a delinquent child support obligation. He is a daily marijuana abuser. He is supported entirely by his mother. Pretrial Services recommends detention both as a flight risk and a danger to the community. I fully agree.
Dkt. No. 7 at 2. Defendant is now seeking review of Judge Scheer's finding.
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court may review the Magistrate Judge's order detaining a defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). A review of a Magistrate Judge's detention order is a de novo hearing. United States v. Koubritti, 2001 WL 1525270 at *5 (E.D. Mich. Oct.16, 2001); United States v. Jones, 804 F.Supp. 1081 (S.D. Ind. 1992); United States v. Delker, 757 F.2d 1390, 1394 (3d Cir. 1985). The district court must order detention if, after a hearing, it concludes "that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community...." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The Government has the ultimate burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant presents a danger to the community and that no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the safety of the defendant or of other persons and the community. United States v. Hazime, 762 F.2d 34, 37 (6th Cir. 1985).
B. LEGAL ANALYSIS
The district court must make findings as to bond or detention based on the following factors: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the Defendant; (3) the history and characteristics of the Defendant; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger posed by the Defendant's release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Each factor is addressed below.
For the first factor-the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged-the Court notes that Defendant has been indicted on one charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm in ...