Case 2:23-cr-00201 Document 39 Filed 12/29/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 99

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No.: 2:23-cr-00201-01

TIMOTHY A. WARD

DETENTION ORDER

I. ELIGIBILITY

This case is eligible for a detention hearing because the United States of America filed a
Motion asserting that the case involves a controlled substance offense for which the
maximum penalty is ten years or more, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(C). The United States
asserts that the defendant should be detained, because no conditions of release will
reasonably assure defendant’s appearance as required and the safety of any other person
and the community.

II. ORDER FOR DETENTION

After conducting a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), the Court ORDERS
defendant detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) and (f).

III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DETENTION

The Court orders the defendant detained because it finds by clear and convincing evidence
that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any
other person and the community. The Court further finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
appearance of defendant as required.

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT

The Court’s findings are based on the testimony of the witness, the Pretrial Services
Report, the proffers and arguments of counsel, and other information available to the
Court and include the following:

A. The offenses with which the defendant is charged are serious crimes that carry a
penalty greater than ten years and involve the distribution of methamphetamine,
a Schedule II controlled substance.
Case 2:23-cr-00201 Document 39 Filed 12/29/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 100

B. The evidence against the defendant is strong. According to the witness, agents
conducted an investigation of defendant and his wife for the distribution of
methamphetamine from October 2, 2023 to December 6, 2023. During the
investigation, agents completed controlled purchases of methamphetamine using
confidential informants. The controlled purchases were recorded on video and
audio. Two of the purchases of methamphetamine occurred at Defendant’s
residence that he shared with his wife and young child. Agents additionally
completed a controlled purchase of a firearm at Defendant’s residence using a
confidential informant. Defendant transferred the firearm to the informant despite
Defendant being a person prohibited from possessing firearms. This transaction
was recorded on audio and agents recovered the firearm from the informant
afterward. A search warrant was subsequently executed on Defendant’s home at
the time of his arrest. Authorities seized suspected methamphetamine, syringes,
razor blades, marijuana devices, and a powdery substance that was consistent with
a “cutting agent.”
C. A rebuttable presumption exists that no condition or conditions of release would
adequately safeguard the community or insure the defendant’s presence at future
proceedings. Defendant produced some evidence to rebut the presumption. He
produced a letter from an employer stating that Defendant is a good employee and
a letter from Recovery Point accepting Defendant into its residential drug
treatment program. Generally, it only takes a little evidence to rebut the
presumption. While the evidence presented by Defendant arguably rebuts the
presumption on the issue of nonappearance, it does not rebut the presumption as
to Defendant’s danger to the community. Moreover, even if it rebutted the
presumption in toto, the presumption still remains as a factor—it just does not
carry the weight of a presumption. In any case, the other factors weigh heavily in
favor of detention, as explained below.
D. Defendant is a lifelong resident of this district. However, when he was arrested, the
Marshals Service found him in possession of a handcuff key. Defendant suggested
that this key was simply a “novelty” that he wore around his neck. That explanation
would be easier to believe if not for Defendant’s impressive history of fleeing and
absconding. Defendant has been convicted for “escape” twice: one time, he escaped
from a correctional facility and stole a car; the other time, he was on bond when he
stole a car. He was arrested and escaped the custody of West Virginia State Police
after his arrest. He has been charged with fleeing four times and convicted twice.
He has been convicted of giving false information to a law enforcement officer, had
a capias issued for failure to appear, been charged with being a fugitive from
justice, failed to respond to charges, and failed to pay fines.
E. Defendant has a history of committing new crimes while on bond, parole, or
supervision. He has had his probation revoked and has been sentenced for
violating parole. He was on probation for a Georgia conviction of “theft by taking”
when the crimes in the instant indictment were committed.
F. Defendant has a history of violence. He was charged with domestic battery for
beating a woman in her head with his fists. While on bond for that charge, he beat
her again in an alley behind a public street. When the police were called, he hid in
the bushes. He has been charged with two counts of battery on a government
employee and with obstructing an officer.
 Case 2:23-cr-00201 Document 39 Filed 12/29/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 101

G. Defendant has a history of possession of firearms. He also has accumulated twenty

criminal convictions over the past twenty-one years, with at least seven of them
being felony convictions. His long and robust criminal history includes additional
charges of forgery; uttering a forged writing; receiving and transferring stolen
goods; breaking and entering; possession of a controlled substance; public
intoxication; possession of a substance containing ephedrine and/or
pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine; daytime
burglary; petit larceny; obtaining goods by false pretense; possession of drug
related objects; false statements or writings/concealed facts; identity theft/fraud;
theft by receiving stolen property; loitering upon school premises or zone; criminal
trespass; theft by taking; fraud and related activity in connection with an access
device; delivery of a controlled substance; person prohibited from possessing a
firearm; receiving or transferring stolen vehicle; grand larceny; fugitive from
justice; and conspiracy to deliver controlled substances.
H. On the day of his arrest in the instant matter, Defendant tested positive for
methamphetamine, amphetamine, and MDMA.
I. The nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that
would be posed by defendant’s release include the potential danger of continued
violations of the law.

V. ADDITIONAL DIRECTIVES

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)(2)-(4), the Court directs:

A. Defendant be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement

in a correctional facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting
or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal; and

B. Defendant be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel; and

C. 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 in which Defendant is
confined shall deliver the Defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of
an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Detention Order to defendant, counsel

of record, the United States Marshals Service, and the Probation Department.

ENTERED: December 29, 2023