Case 8:12-cr-00343-VMC-AEP Document 15

Filed 09/24/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID 37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. JOHN D. STANTON, III Case No. 8:12-CR-343-T-33AEP

ORDER OF DETENTION In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following facts require the detention of the Defendant pending trial in this case. The Defendant is charged in an eight count Indictment with the following offenses: one count of corrupt interference with Internal Revenue Laws in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) and with seven counts of failure to file a tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. The United States proceeded by way of a proffer and requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(A) that the Defendant be detained pending the outcome of the instant case as a serious risk of flight. Without proffering any specific terms of release, the Defendant requested that the Court consider imposing any suitable conditions of release. In essence, the United States submitted that the Defendant’s recent history has demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the law and an inability to abide by court orders. Specifically, the United States detailed events surrounding two other court actions, a domestic case in state court and a bankruptcy case here in the Middle District of Florida, in which the judges in those actions issued warrants for the Defendant’s arrest for failing to comply with court orders and failing to appear as required. More significantly, the United States presented compelling facts to demonstrate that the Defendant was a knowing fugitive in deliberate avoidance of the pending arrest warrants. As

Case 8:12-cr-00343-VMC-AEP Document 15

Filed 09/24/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID 38

proffered, approximately since the first arrest warrant was issued against the Defendant, the Defendant has been living a transient lifestyle, in which he has lived in hotels, registered under other names and incurring charges in excess of $20,000. The United States also argued that beyond the Defendant’s complete disregard for the law, the fact that the Defendant has access to significant financial resources, and the fact that Defendant likely faces a potential sentence at the statutory maximum of ten years, also compel that the Defendant be detained as a serious risk of flight. Thus, the essence of the government’s presentation was that because the Defendant had already previously fled from other courts’ arrest warrants, and given the significant penalties at stake in this case coupled with the Defendant’s financial resources, the Defendant must be detained as a serious risk of flight. In this regard, I find that the credible evidence and information1 submitted at the hearing by the government establishes that there are no conditions available at this time to ensure that the Defendant would not be a serious risk of flight. In consideration of the seriousness of the offense, the potential penalties associated with the case2, and most significantly, the evidence demonstrating the Defendant’s prior actions relating to his flight and obstructionist conduct, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant would be a serious risk of flight should he be released, and accordingly, he is ordered DETAINED. The Defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The Defendant shall

"The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the [detention] hearing." See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The government stated that it projects an guideline range of 151-188 months, which is in excess of the statutory maximum of 10 years.
2

1

Case 8:12-cr-00343-VMC-AEP Document 15

Filed 09/24/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID 39

be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On Order of a Court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the Defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding. Done and Ordered in Tampa, Florida, this 24th day of September, 2012.

Copies to: Counsel of Record U.S. Marshal’s Office