United States v. Smith, 3:18-CR-198. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20191022b56
Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 21, 2019
Summary: ORDER THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Reconsider (doc.12) filed on October 18, 2019. On January 30, 2017, Defendant was placed on an O. R Appearance Bond in Case No. 3:17-cr-25-01 with the condition of Curfew with Location Monitoring. He subsequently was sentenced in Case No. 3:18-cr-198 to a term of 108 months. He is requesting this Court reconsider his home confinement as presentence credit. The Court finds that pursuant to 18 U.
Summary: ORDER THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Reconsider (doc.12) filed on October 18, 2019. On January 30, 2017, Defendant was placed on an O. R Appearance Bond in Case No. 3:17-cr-25-01 with the condition of Curfew with Location Monitoring. He subsequently was sentenced in Case No. 3:18-cr-198 to a term of 108 months. He is requesting this Court reconsider his home confinement as presentence credit. The Court finds that pursuant to 18 U.S..
More
ORDER
THOMAS M. ROSE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Reconsider (doc.12) filed on October 18, 2019. On January 30, 2017, Defendant was placed on an O. R Appearance Bond in Case No. 3:17-cr-25-01 with the condition of Curfew with Location Monitoring. He subsequently was sentenced in Case No. 3:18-cr-198 to a term of 108 months. He is requesting this Court reconsider his home confinement as presentence credit.
The Court finds that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3585(b), although Defendant was placed on location monitoring prior to his surrender of a federal sentence, location monitoring is a form pretrial release and is not official detention and therefore, DENIES Defendant's Motion to Reconsider (doc. 12).
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
