USA v. PERDUE et al

Page 1 of 3
3:03-cr-150-MCR
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
MARLIN D. PURIFOY,
Defendant.
Case Number: 3:03-cr-150/MCR
ORDER OF DETENTION
The Defendant appeared before the Court for a detention hearing on Thursday,
December 11, 2025, pending a hearing to revoke Defendant’s supervised release.
The Government moved for detention pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 	32.1(a)(6), 	which 	incorporates 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	3143(a)(1). 	Section
3143(a)(1) provides that the Defendant shall be detained unless the Court finds “by
clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger
to the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142(b)
or (c).” Additionally, Rule 32.1(a)(6) makes clear that “the burden of establishing
by clear and convincing evidence that the person will not flee or pose a danger to
any other person or to the community rests with the [Defendant].”
After considering the evidence proffered by the Defendant, and the evidence
proffered by the Government, the Court finds Defendant is subject to supervised
release pursuant to a Judgment in a Criminal Case and Defendant has not established
by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a danger to the community for the
following reasons.
Defendant was initially sentenced in 2004 to 146 months of incarceration
followed by 4 years of supervised release for conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of
cocaine base. Defendant began supervision on February 5, 2015, and approximately
a year later, on February 7, 2016, attempted to kill his paramour with a hammer. See
Gov’t Exhs. 1-9. The violent assault was in front of her minor children and resulted
Case 3:03-cr-00150-MCR-MD Document 255 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
3:03-cr-150-MCR
in them running to a neighbor’s house to call 911, while their mother laid on the
ground in their home bleeding from her significant injuries.
Defendant initially fled from the scene. After his arrest, he pled guilty to the
charge and was originally sentenced to 30 years in prison. 	While in prison,
Defendant assisted the State with a triple homicide investigation and, as a result, his
sentenced was reduced and he was released from State custody in late October 2025.
Approximately 5 days after that release, Defendant was taken into custody on a
federal detainer for the instant violation of supervision warrant. Defendant has been
in custody since that time.
Defendant argued that if released he intends to live with his cousin in Seffner,
Florida, a city located in the Middle District of Florida. He also proffered that the
victim of the 2016 attempted murder testified at his resentencing that she is not afraid
of him and believes he should be released. Finally, Defendant proffered that he is a
changed person and has attempted to turn his life around while he has been
incarcerated, including attempting to get his GED.
When considering the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court finds that
Defendant has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence1 that he will not be
a danger to the community if released. Notably, in the one year and a few days that
Defendant was released from custody after serving a 12-year sentence, he committed
a heinous and violent crime in front of minor children. 	Even if the Court were to
accept that Defendant has since attempted to turn his life around, those efforts were
made in a controlled environment – a prison. 	Defendant’s recent five days of
stability when he was released from State custody and before he was detained on the
federal warrant is simply not enough to reasonably assure the Court the Defendant
will not be a danger to the community if released.
The Defendant is therefore DETAINED pending a final adjudication on the
petition to revoke supervised release.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(h)(i), the Court directs that the Defendant be
committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections
1 “Clear and convincing evidence” entails more than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than
evidence establishing a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423-
25 (1979); Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984) (clear and convincing evidence is
evidence which induces “an abiding conviction that the truth of its factual contentions are ‘highly
probable’”).
Case 3:03-cr-00150-MCR-MD Document 255 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
3:03-cr-150-MCR
facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving
sentences or being held in custody pending appeal; directs that the Defendant be
afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel; and, on
order of a court of the United States or on a request of an attorney for the
Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which the Defendant
is confined deliver the Defendant to a United States marshal for the purpose of an
appearance in connection with a court proceeding.
The Defendant is remanded into the custody of the United States Marshal.
Entered on December 12, 2025
s/Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:03-cr-00150-MCR-MD Document 255 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 3