United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division
C. CHAMBERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pending before the Court is the Government's Motion for
Revocation of Release Order, ECF No. 217. For reasons
specified herein, the Government's Motion is
was arrested in the pending case on April 17, 2018. ECF No.
37. On the same day, Magistrate Judge Cheryl Eifert held a
detention hearing at which the Government did not request
detention. ECF No. 58. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Eifert
ordered Defendant released on a $10, 000 unsecured appearance
bond subject to certain conditions of release. Id.
9, 2018, the probation officer assigned to Defendant filed a
Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial Release in
which she reported that Defendant had violated several
conditions of his pretrial release. ECF No. 130. These
violations included failure to avoid contact with another
defendant in the case except as prescribed by the Court, use
of controlled substances, and failure to complete a program
of substance abuse therapy and counseling as directed by his
probation officer. Id. As a result of these
violations, the probation officer recommended to the Court
that a warrant be issued for Defendant's arrest.
Judge Eifert accordingly ordered the issuance of a warrant
for Defendant's arrest on May 9, 2018. Id.
Defendant was arrested pursuant to the warrant on May 10,
2018, ECF No. 137, and Magistrate Judge Eifert held a bond
revocation hearing on that date, ECF No. 145. During the
hearing, Magistrate Judge Eifert directed that
Defendant's bond be revoked and that the Order Setting
Conditions of Release be vacated pursuant to that revocation.
ECF No. 147. At the time of the revocation, Magistrate Judge
Eifert granted Defendant leave to reopen the matter of his
detention in the event that a substance abuse program became
7, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Reopen Detention and
Grant Release Directly to Recovery Point Rehabilitation
Center in which he reported that he had been accepted into
Recovery Point and that a bed was available to him starting
June 8, 2018. ECF No. 198. Pursuant to his acceptance,
Defendant asked the Court to release him directly to Recovery
Point for rehabilitation. Id. After hearing on June
12, 2018, Magistrate Judge Eifert granted Defendant's
Motion and ordered that he be released to Recovery Point on
June 13, 2018. ECF No. 209. Defendant was then released to
Recovery Point on June 13, 2018.
Defendant's release, the Government filed the present
Motion for Revocation of Release Order. ECF No. 217. In its
Motion, the Government asserts that Defendant's release
should be revoked because Defendant “has clearly
demonstrated that he is unwilling to abide by conditions of
pre-trial release.” ECF No. 217. The Government argues
that Defendant was already given a chance at treatment and
rehabilitation, which he squandered in his failure to
complete the prior program, and that he should not be
permitted a second chance. Id.
in his response to the Government's Motion, argues that
he should be given a second chance at rehabilitation. ECF No.
220. Defendant advocates for a policy that encourages
criminal defendants with drug addiction problems to enter
drug rehabilitation facilities, and notes that “[d]rug
addicts need rehabilitation, not incarceration.”
considering a party's motion to revoke a magistrate
judge's pretrial release order, “the district court
acts de novo and must make an independent determination of
the proper pretrial detention or conditions of
release.” United States v. Stewart, 19
Fed.Appx. 46, 48 (4th Cir. 2001).
Bail Reform Act imposes a rebuttable presumption of detention
when a defendant is charged with a crime for which the
Controlled Substances Act prescribes a maximum term of
imprisonment of ten years or more. 18 U.S.C. §
3142(e)(3)(A) (A). In this case, Defendant is charged with
violating 21 U.S.C. § 846, a controlled substance
offense which carries a maximum term of imprisonment greater
than ten years. This charge indicates the rebuttable
presumption of detention. Where a defendant is subject to
this presumption, he bears the burden of rebutting it.
United States v. Boyd, 484 F.Supp.2d 486, 488 (E.D.
reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that Defendant has
successfully rebutted the presumption of detention and that
the conditions of release presently in place “will
reasonably assure the appearance of [Defendant] as required