It is important to note that at no time has the government contended or has Magistrate Judge
Stacy or this Court found that Mr. Stanford’s release from custody would “endanger the safety of anyother person or the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b), (c), and (e).
the government’sMemorandum in Support of Detention, Dkt. No. 31, filed June 25, 2009; Motion for Stay PendingDistrict Court’s
Review of Release Order, Dkt. No. 33, filed June 26, 2009; Motion for Revocation of Release Order, Dkt. No. 45, filed June 29, 2009; and this Court’s Order (reversingMagistrate Judge Stacy’s order releasing Mr. Stanford), Dkt. No. 52, filed June 30, 2009.As the 5 Circuit reasoned, “[b]ecause neither party argues that the fourth § 3142(g) factor,
‘the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release,’ is applicable to Stanford, the district court made no findings on this element. Neither party argues that it should be taken into account. Accordingly, our inquiry need go nofurther.”
United States v. Stanford
, 2009 WL 259136, at 4.3
arguments of counsel, entered an order on June 30, 2009, granting the government’smotion.Previous counsel for Mr. Stanford filed Allen “Stanford’s Motion ToReconsider and/or Reopen the Court’s Detention Order on July 7, 2009,” which wasdenied on July 9, 2009. Thereafter, Mr. Stanford appealed the District Court’sDetention Order and denial of the Motion to Reconsider and/or Reopen the Court’sDetention Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit whichaffirmed this Court’s order on August 24, 2009.
II.RISK OF FLIGHT
The undersigned counsel do not seek to re-litigate the findings by bothMagistrate Judge Stacy and this Court that Mr. Stanford poses a flight risk. While
Case 4:09-cr-00342 Document 172 Filed in TXSD on 12/21/09 Page 3 of 50