U.S. v. Walker
| Citation | 808 F.2d 1309 |
| Decision Date | 05 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 86-5264,86-5272,s. 86-5264 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert WALKER, Defendant-Appellee. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Duon WALKER, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Page 1309
v.
Robert WALKER, Defendant-Appellee.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Duon WALKER, Defendant-Appellee.
Ninth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 5, 1986 *.
Opinion Jan. 28, 1987.
Page 1310
Roel C. Campos, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Frank Duncan, Los Angeles, Cal., and Jerry Kaplan, Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
William J. Genego, Los Angeles, Cal., for amicus curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before KOELSCH, ANDERSON and HALL, Circuit Judges.
CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge:
On October 2, 1986, the government filed this emergency motion seeking revocation of the district court's orders releasing defendants Duon Walker and Robert Walker pending trial. For the reasons set forth below, we grant the government's motion.
Duon Walker is charged with possession with intent to distribute six kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) (1982). During a search of his residence pursuant to a warrant, government agents recovered, among other things, two loaded rifles, three loaded handguns, and several rounds of ammunition.
Robert Walker is charged with conspiracy to distribute one kilogram of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1) and 846 (1982). He was armed with a handgun when he allegedly attempted to sell the cocaine to undercover agents.
On September 3, 1986, the defendants appeared before a magistrate, and the government moved for pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142 (Supp. III 1985). At a hearing held on September 5, 1986, the magistrate granted the government's motion for pretrial detention of both defendants, finding that no condition or conditions of release would reasonably assure the safety of the community. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142(e). The defendants then moved the district court for revocation of the detention orders pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3145(b) (Supp. III 1985).
After a de novo review of the detention orders, the district court found that the government had established by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or conditions of release would reasonably assure the safety of the community if either of the defendants were released pending trial. The court then addressed whether
Page 1311
the pretrial...To continue reading
Request your trial
- Brye v. Brakebush, 93-2833
-
U.S. v. Kanahele, Crim. No. 95-00764HG.
...and danger to the community under the Bail Reform Act. See United States v. Townsend, 897 F.2d 989 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Walker, 808 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir. 1987). E. The subsection (c) Defendant's chief contention of error is that the magistrate judge failed to consider whether cond......
-
U.S. v. Petersen, 1:08-cr-0141 OWW.
...due process. See, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987); United States v. Walker, 808 F.2d 1309, 1311 (9th Cir.1986); see also, United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1090-92 (9th THE COURT FURTHER FINDS THAT the government has shown by clear and ......
-
Simms v. Oedekoven, 92-97
...federal statute against a variety of constitutional attacks. U.S. v. Parker, 848 F.2d 61 (5th Cir.1988) (Fifth Amendment); U.S. v. Walker, 808 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir.1986) (due process); U.S. v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758 (7th Cir.1985) (Fifth and Eighth Amendments); U.S. v. Savides, 658 F.Supp. 1399......