USA v. Eckles et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CRIMINAL NO. 5:05CR9-28-V

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.

ORDER

BRADFORD DARNELL DOBBINS,
Defendant.

— SO oe ae se

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Government's “Notice of Appeal and Motion for
Revocation and Stay of Magistrate Judge’s Release Order “ pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1),
filed June 16, 2005. The Defendant is in custody awaiting trial.

Defendant had his original detention hearing on March 24, 2005, before Chief United States
Magistrate Judge Carl Horn. At the conclusion of that hearing, Defendant was ordered detained.
On June 14, 2005, Defendant, through counsel, requested a review of his eligibility for bond.
Defendant’s motion alleged a substantial change of circumstances, namely, completion of the
thirty-day Substance Abuse Treatment Program in the Mecklenburg County Jail and Defendant’s
adjustment to confinement since his arrest. On June 16, 2005, the magistrate judge authorized
Defendant's release on bond with electronic monitoring subject to a $25,000.00 unsecured bond,
co-signed by his mother.

This Court reviews de novo the magistrate judge's release order. 18 U.S.C. §3145(b);

United States v. Williams, 753 F.2d 329, 333 (4th Cir. 1985). The Court has reviewed the audio

recording of the detention hearing before the Magistrate Judge as well as the contents of the
criminal file in this matter, including the original Pretrial Services report and recommendation.
The Defendant is charged with violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), namely
conspiracy to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana, as well as_ three different
substantive offenses of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Given that the Grand

1

INFORMATION
GPO

pe 5:05-cr-O0009-MEO-DCK Document 262 Filed 07/26/05 Page1of4

Without minimizing Defendant’s accomplishment, the Court’s reasoning recognizes	1
the limited benefits of any short-term treatment program, particularly where there is a history of
substance abuse that dates back to a person’s youth. Further, the Court appreciates that
participation in substance abuse treatment while a defendant is already confined is somewhat
less compelling than a situation where an individual seeks treatment on his or her own accord.
2
Jury has found probable cause that Defendant committed an offense for which a maximum term
of imprisonment of ten (10) years or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act, a
rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure
the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. §3142(e).
In determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the
appearance of the Defendant and the safety of other persons and the community, the Court
considers all evidence regarding:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged (including whether the offense
if a crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug);
(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including —
(A) the person’s character, physical and mental condition, family ties,
employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community,
community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse,
criminal history, and record concerning appearances at court proceedings;
and
(B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was 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;
and
(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that
would be posed by the person's release. . .
18 U.S.C. §3142(g).
Upon review of these factors, the Court disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that
a substantial change of circumstances exists such that bond is now appropriate in this case. First,
as a general rule, the undersigned does not consider successful completion of a short-term
substance abuse treatment program a sufficient change of circumstances for purposes of the bond
statute. In so finding, the Court notes that this Defendant has been unemployed for approximately	1
a year and a half and the only employment noted by Pretrial Services prior to that time is short-
Case 5:05-cr-00009-MEO-DCK Document 262 Filed 07/26/05 Page 2 of 4

3
term. Defendant admits abusing marijuana since the age of fifteen. Likewise, the strength of the
evidence (as presented by the Government during the detention and bond hearings) - three
undercover purchases of crack cocaine from this individual Defendant - favors detention. This
Defendant has an extensive criminal record dating back to 1993. Defendant has convictions for
drug offenses as well as convictions for offenses indicating that Defendant is a danger to the
community, namely, common law robbery, communicating threats, and resisting arrest. In sum,
taking all of the factors into consideration, the Court finds that no combination of conditions can
reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant and the safety of other persons and the
community.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Government’s motion to revoke the release order
is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Defendant shall remain in custody pending trial.
The Clerk shall certify copies of this Order to Defense Counsel, the United States Attorney,
the United States Marshal, and the United States Probation Office.
Case 5:05-cr-00009-MEO-DCK Document 262 Filed 07/26/05 Page 3 of 4

4
Signed: July 25, 2005
Priceand . Yorkers
Richard L. Voorhees United States District Judge
Case 5:05-cr-00009-MEO-DCK Document 262 Filed 07/26/05 Page 4 of 4