PRELIMINARY ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DETENTION

Dkt. Nos. 295/31

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge.

Luke Brugnara moves for reconsideration of the Court's detention order in these related cases. The Court heard the motion on June 27, 2014, with Brugnara present and represented by counsel. A detention hearing may be reopened "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." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).

Many of the reasons for reconsideration proposed by Brugnara are based on information that was presented to the Court at the prior detention hearings on May 28, 30, and June 11, or was information known to the defense at the time of those hearings. As a result, the Court will not reopen the detention hearing so that Brugnara may reargue: whether he presents an economic danger to the community; his record after his previous release from the Bureau of Prisons; and generally "correcting the record."

There are two new reasons to consider release proposed by Brugnara. First, Brugnara suggests that an additional surety, Donald Pipkins, be considered as a co-signer on a bond. Pipkins, however, was not present at today's detention hearing so the Court cannot evaluate whether he is an appropriate surety and whether his signature on a bond would have a "material bearing" on the detention or release decision. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).

Second, Brugnara urges that the "weight of the evidence" has shifted in his favor following an evidentiary hearing before District Court Judge William H. Alsup. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(2). The government disagrees with Brugnara's interpretation of the evidence presented to Judge Alsup. The transcript of the District Court hearing is not yet available, but is expected soon. In order to give both parties an opportunity to present information from the prior hearing without the necessity of repeating the hearing, the Court continued the hearing on the motion for reconsideration until after the hearing transcript is available.

Finally, the Court notes that Brugnara, against the advice of his counsel and after being reminded of his right to remain silent, addressed the Court directly in support of his request for relief. The Court did not find this information to be (1) new, (2) material to the release decision, or (3) persuasive that Brugnara is presently amenable to community supervision of any type.

In sum, the Court finds that most of the arguments made in support of Brugnara's motion for reconsideration are not valid reasons to rreopen a detention hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). As to a change in the "weight of the evidencce," the Court will continue the motion until after transcripts of the recent evidentiary hearings are available.

IT IS SO ORDERED.