Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

United States v. Hames

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division

July 22, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
WILLIAM BRIAN HAMES

ORDER

W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief District Judge.

Defendant has moved (Doc. # 26) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) for revocation or amendment of the Magistrate Judge's order (Doc. # 22) that Defendant be detained pending trial. The court has reviewed Defendant's motion, the Government's response (Doc. # 30), the Detention Order entered by the Magistrate Judge, and the transcript of the detention hearing (Doc. # 28). Upon careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the facts presented, and the relevant law, Defendant's motion is due to be denied.

A person ordered detained by a Magistrate Judge may move the court with original jurisdiction over the offense to revoke or amend the order of detention. 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). "The motion shall be determined promptly, " id., and based on an "independent review to determine whether the magistrate properly found that pretrial detention is necessary." United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 490 (11th Cir. 1988). The district court need not conduct an evidentiary hearing or make additional findings of fact if, as here, there are no unresolved factual questions and the motion attacks only the Magistrate Judge's legal conclusion that pretrial detention is necessary. Id.

After de novo review, the court finds that the evidence supports the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and that his legal conclusions are correct. Based on Defendant's history and characteristics, including his conduct while under an Order for Protection Against Abuse issued by a Houston County, Alabama district judge, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)-(B), the court finds that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure... the safety of any other person and the community." Id. at § 3142(e)(1).

Defendant was served with a misdemeanor warrant for domestic violence and arrested on April 14, 2015, relating to incidences of alleged violence against his wife. At the time of his arrest, Defendant was also served with an Order of Protection Against Abuse issued by a Houston County, Alabama district judge. The order of protection prohibited Defendant from engaging in various actions, including but not limited to, having any contact with his wife and possessing a firearm while the order was in effect. Despite the order, Defendant entered his wife's home on May 21, 2015, with a pistol, made threats against her life, and physically attacked her. After a prolonged physical altercation, Defendant left his wife's home with her cell phone, purse, and three rifles, one of which Defendant's wife had purchased the day after she made the domestic violence charge. Defendant than proceeded to make several internet posts, insinuating that he had killed his wife and threatening the lives of others who he believed had engaged in relations with his wife.

A review of Defendant's actions, specifically the violence toward his wife and possession of multiple firearms, while under a known Order of Protection Against Abuse support the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal determinations. The court finds that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure... the safety of any other person and the community." Id. at § 3142(e)(1).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant's motion (Doc. # 26) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's order entered on June, 30, 2013, is ADOPTED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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