MEMORANDUM & ORDER
WILLIAM D. STIEHL, District Judge.
Before the Court is defendant's second motion for reconsideration of the Order of Detention (Doc. 34). The Court heard oral argument on the motion. Upon review of the record, consideration of the arguments of counsel, including the government's opposition to the motion and the opposition of the United States Probation Office, the Court DENIES defendant's motion to be released on bail pending trial.
The defendant was ordered detained by Magistrate Judge Wilkerson after considering the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §3142. The defendant asserts that he has, since the time of the Court's Order of Detention, secured a new housing plan and has employment offers in the St. Louis, Missouri, area. In addition, he has agreed to go on electronic monitoring.
The Court has engaged in a de novo review of the pre-trial detention order, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). The Court specifically notes that the instant offense occurred while the defendant was on supervised release for a 1993 conviction for drug crime involving heroin. The defendant was incarcerated on those charges from 1993 to 2005. In addition, although the defendant asserts that he has ties to the area, his official residence is in Oakland, California, and he has family throughout the United States, minimizing his ties to this area. Although the defendant's mother has recently moved into and is living in St. Louis, her ties to the area are relatively new and, therefore, neither long-term nor stable for the defendant. In addition, the defendant has been unemployed for the past two years, and his most recent employment was in San Francisco. He has a prior history involving drug offenses, guns and theft. His offer from In Style Clothing to work as a retail sales associate is notable, but this would be a new, un-tested position, which does not offer sufficient security to warrant release pending trial.
The Court therefore concludes, given his personal history and characteristics, including his weak ties to this area, his past drug offense history, his long-term lack of employment and the nature and character of the charges now, including that the instant offense was commited while he was on supervised release, that consistent with the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions, no condition or combination of conditions imposed on the defendant were he to be released would overcome the high risk that he would flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community.
The Court FINDS that the defendant's continued pretrial detention is necessary and appropriate under the factual circumstances presented to us as well as the applicable legal principles. His request for release from custody pending trial therefore must be DENIED (Doc. 34) and ...