United States of America, v. Andre P. Williams, Appellant, 953 F.2d 688 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 953 F.2d 688 (D.C. Cir. 1992) Jan. 31, 1992

Before MIKVA, Chief Judge and KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.


JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM

Upon consideration of the appellant's memorandum of law and fact in support of the appeal of the preventive detention order and the response thereto, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order filed November 8, 1991 be affirmed. Under any standard of review, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of clear and convincing evidence supporting detention, independent of any consideration of the statutory presumption that no conditions of release would protect the community. See 18 U.S.C. 3142(e); United States v. Alatishe, 768 F.2d 364 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

The government's proffer that Williams served as a lieutenant in a narcotics organization through March 1991 and employed minors to distribute illegal drugs until September 1989 went uncontradicted; Williams' only response to these charges was that he disassociated himself from the organization following his release from prison in 1989. Williams offers no independent evidence supporting this assertion; he relies solely on the fact the indictment lists no specific incident of illegal conduct on his part after March 1988.

In addition, it was uncontradicted that Williams was present at Joel Mays' murder and fled the scene with two other individuals. Although Williams claims that he attempted to prevent the murder, Williams admits that he hit Mays over the head with a bottle. Williams' involvement in this incident also appears to be clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release would ensure the safety of the community.

The Clerk is directed to withhold the issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.