history began in 1971 with a carrying a pistol without a license ("CPWL") conviction for which the defendant received a 2 to 6 year Federal Youth Corrections Act sentence in Superior Court. He had a revolver near the scene of an armed robbery. He was released on parole on July 27, 1973, and rearrested within a year. Those charges were dropped, but his adjustment to parole supervision was considered fair to poor. Most significantly, while on parole, he was rearrested for kidnaping and then for bank robbery. On September 1, 1974, he was sentenced to 5 to 30 years in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia for kidnaping and to one year for CPWL. Together with two other men, the defendant kidnaped a woman at gun point. She was beaten, tied up and put in a closet until she escaped. On October 4, 1974 the defendant was sentenced to 10 years in the United States District Court in Maryland for bank larceny. He and two cohorts robbed a bank at gun point. The sentence in the Superior Court was made consecutive to the federal sentence, except for the CPWL sentence which was made concurrent.
Additionally, on August 22, 1975, the defendant received a 2 to 6 year sentence for assault with a dangerous weapon. The report indicates that the defendant shot his victim twice. Defendant claimed that he took an "Alford" plea.
Defendant was still on parole in 1987 when his wife summoned police to their home in Prince George's county.
Ultimately, the police found an arsenal in this home. They found a loaded handgun, a loaded revolver, an unloaded automatic pistol, a stolen shotgun, two sawed off shotguns, two other revolvers, a Beretta handgun, three ammunition magazines, four bulletproof vests, a gas mask, and holsters for some of these weapons. Possession of these weapons then lead to the defendant's pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon in the United States District Court in Maryland, the case which yielded the pre-sentencing investigation report referred to herein.
Finally, the defendant was convicted of prison breach in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in 1995 and received a sentence of 6 to 18 months. Defendant, who received a sentence to 5 to 30 years from the Superior Court in 1975, was on parole on that sentence when he committed the instant offense. That means, of course, that the defendant was on parole for the violent offense of kidnaping while armed when he committed the instant crime of possession of a firearm by a felon, just as he was on parole for the violent offense of bank larceny when he last committed the identical crime of possession of a firearm by a felon in 1987.
Defendant's criminal history and his committing crimes while on parole compel his detention. A major focus of the reform the Bail Reform Act attempted was to make explicit the consideration of dangerousness in order to deal with those defendants who committed new offenses while on supervision for old ones. S. Rept. No. 98-225, 98th Cong. 1st Session, (1983) reprinted as Appendix II to J. Weinberg, Federal Bail and Detention Handbook (1996), passim. Defendant is an archetype of the kind of defendant to which Congress pointed. While on parole for one violent offense he possessed several firearms. Then, while on parole for another violent offense, he possessed another firearm. Clearly, the contempt the defendant showed for the conditions of his parole and his arming himself in violation of those conditions renders it highly unlikely that he would comply with the conditions to be imposed if he were released, including the central condition that he commit no new offense while on release. That display of contempt compels the conclusion that only his detention can eliminate the risk that he will once again endanger this community by once again arming himself while on conditional release. He is most certainly dangerous in that sense.
Therefore, a weighing of all the pertinent facts compels the conclusion that the defendant
JOHN M. FACCIOLA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
September 15, 1997