in the ACCA is to add to a defendant’s punishment because of his prior criminal acts; the purpose of the Bail Reform Act is to release only those defendants as to whom conditions of release can be fashioned which will reasonably assure the safety of other persons and the community. It is therefore quite logical to impose greater punishment only if the prior criminal acts occurred at separate times but to assess the risk to the community if a defendant is released on bail based on his prior convictions regardless of whether they arose out of the same or different courses of conduct. See generally United States v. Campbell, 28 F.Supp.2d 805, 809 (W.D.N.Y., 1998). I respectfully disagree with the contrary holding in the case of United States v. Selby, 333 F.Supp.2d 367 (D.Md., 2004) (<HOLDING>). 6 . A felony is defined in 18 U.S.C. §
holding that such an instruction is a useless act if no unadjudicated offenses have been introduced holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible holding that a defendants statements regarding offenses for which he had not been charged were admissible notwithstanding the attachment of his sixth amendment right to counsel on other charged offenses holding that under the bail reform act for a defendant to have been convicted of two or more offenses constituting crimes of violence offenses must have been committed on different occasions holding that when two underlying offenses are charged in an indictment for capital murder the state need only prove one of the two offenses to support the conviction