USA v. Ford

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DALLAS FORD,
Defendant.
5:22-CR-50058-JLV
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RETURN TO STATE CUSTODY
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant Dallas Ford was charged on March 17, 2022, in an Indictment
with Possession of Firearm by a Prohibited Person in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
922(g)(3), 922(g)(9) and 924(a)(2). 	A Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Prosequendum
was entered on August 30, 2022, as Mr. Ford was serving a state court
sentence and was being held in state custody at the Rapid City Community
Work Center in Rapid City, South Dakota. 	(Docs. 5, 6, 7 and 9).
On January 6, 2023, Mr. Ford pled guilty to the charge in the
Indictment. 	Sentencing is scheduled for April 14, 2023.
On January 11, 2023, Mr. Ford filed a motion to release him on bond to
allow him to return to state custody so he can address his initial parole date
with the South Dakota Department of Corrections. 	(Doc. 42). 	The government
opposes the motion.
Case 5:22-cr-50058-JLV Document 43 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

2
DISCUSSION
A. 	Reopening the detention hearing.
The court previously determined that Mr. Ford is a danger to the
community and a risk of flight. 	Although not captioned as such, what Mr. Ford
seeks is to reopen the detention hearing.
18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B) provides that “[t]he hearing may be reopened,
before or after a determination by the judicial officer, at any time before trial if
the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the
movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue
whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the
appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and
the community.” 	The court finds that Mr. Ford offers no new information that
didn’t exist or wasn’t known to him at the time of the hearing. 	Therefore, the
court will not reopen the detention hearing. 	However, for purposes of
supplementing the oral record at the detention hearing and its order of
detention, the court will set forth its legal and factual basis for detaining Mr.
Ford.
B. 	Risk of flight and danger the community
The Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, governs the pretrial release of
defendants in federal district court. 	Although Mr. Ford’s case is governed by
§3143, as discussed infra, the court will set forth its analysis of the § 3142
factors in order to reach its conclusion as to whether release is appropriate. 	In
Case 5:22-cr-50058-JLV Document 43 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

3
determining whether to release or detain Mr. Ford, the court is required to
consider the following:
(1) 	the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
including whether the offense . . . involves a firearm;
(2) 	the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) 	the history and characteristics of the person including:
(A) 	the person’s character, physical and mental
condition, family ties, employment, financial
resources, length of residence in the community,
community ties, past conduct, history relating to
drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and
record concerning appearance at court
proceedings; and
(B) 	whether, at the time of the current offense or
arrest, the person was on probation, on parole,
or on other release pending trial, sentencing,
appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense
under Federal, State, or local law; and
(4) 	the nature and seriousness of the danger to any
person or the community that would be posed by the
person’s release.
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). 	For the ordinary case, the Act specifies a presumption in
favor of release. 	18 U.S.C. § 3142(a), (b), (c), and (e). 	The government may
move for detention based on either risk of flight or danger to the community or
others (or both grounds). 	18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1).
In order to justify detention based on a defendant’s risk of
nonappearance, the defendant’s risk of flight must be established by a
preponderance of the evidence. 	United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 891 n.20
(8th Cir. 1985). 	In order to justify detention based on a defendant’s
Case 5:22-cr-50058-JLV Document 43 Filed 01/19/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

4
dangerousness, the danger must be established by clear and convincing
evidence. 	18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).
Here, Mr. Ford was indicted for Possession of Firearm by a Prohibited
Person in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), 922(g)(9) and 924(a)(2). 	As to the
weight of the evidence, a grand jury has found probable cause to believe Mr.
Ford has committed the offense in the indictment. 	As noted infra Mr. Ford has
now pled guilty and been adjudicated guilty of the offense.
As for the remaining factors the court is to consider, Mr. Ford is
approximately 27 years old. 	From the time Mr. Ford was 18 until his most
recent conviction (a span of less than 10 years), Mr. Ford has been charged
with 12 felony offenses; he has been convicted of 4 felony drug charges. 	A
number of Mr. Ford’s criminal charges arise from domestic abuse allegations.
The court finds that Mr. Ford’s substance abuse history and arrests for
domestic violence poses a danger to the community if he were to be released.
Under the Bail Reform Act, the court is also to consider a person’s record
concerning appearances at court proceedings. 	Bench warrants were issued on
a number of occasions for Mr. Ford’s failure to appear at court proceedings.
Mr. Ford was convicted of a felony Failure to Appear charge and received a 2
year custody sentence. 	These facts establish that Mr. Ford is a flight risk.
Based on Mr. Ford’s s extensive criminal history, his substance abuse
history, and his failures to appear, the court finds that Mr. Ford is a flight risk
and a danger to the community.
Case 5:22-cr-50058-JLV Document 43 Filed 01/19/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

5
C. 	Whether returning Mr. Ford’s to state custody constitutes a
condition which would reasonably assure the Defendant’s
appearance and the safety of the community.
Mr. Ford’s argument is that remanding him to state court custody would
“most productively resolve the issues relating this case . . .and be most helpful
if Defendant could return to State custody, and then be returned to Federal
Custody to be sentenced.” 	(Doc. 42). 	Mr. Ford suggests that the court impose
a condition of his bond that he stay in state court custody until he is paroled
and then he be returned to federal custody. 	In his motion, Mr. Ford states he
would waive any rights he has under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers
Act.
Mr. Ford had entered a guilty plea is awaiting sentencing. 	Release or
detention of a defendant pending sentencing is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3143.
Mr. Ford fails to point to any other section of the United States Criminal Code
which applies to the court’s analysis. 	The plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3143
does not support a finding that the defendant should be released or returned to
state custody. 	On the contrary, it dictates:
Except as provided in paragraph (2), the judicial officer shall order
that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and who is
awaiting imposition or execution of sentence, other than a person
for whom the applicable guideline1 promulgated pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 994 does not recommend a term of imprisonment, be
detained, unless the judicial officer 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).
1 Although Mr. Ford’s presentence investigation report has not yet been filed, given
Defendant’s prior felony conviction history and the nature of the Possession of a
Firearm by a Prohibited Person charge to which he pled guilty, the court anticipates
that the applicable guidelines will recommend a term of imprisonment.
Case 5:22-cr-50058-JLV Document 43 Filed 01/19/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

6
18 U.S.C. § 3143 (emphasis added). 	Absent, is any provision allowing the
court to release a defendant or return them to state court custody. 	As
discussed above, the defendant is a risk of flight and danger to the community,
so detention in federal custody is mandatory.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Return to State
Custody (Doc. 42) is denied.
DATED this 19th day of January, 2023.
BY THE COURT:
DANETA WOLLMANN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:22-cr-50058-JLV Document 43 Filed 01/19/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>