U.S. v. MALONE, 12-CR-30246-DRH. (2013)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20130606b45
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 05, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2013
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. Pending now before the Court is defendant's motion to reconsider (Doc. 37). Defendant claims he has certain medical conditions that are exacerbated by the conditions at the St. Clair County jail where he is being housed awaiting transfer to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). Defendant seeks to be released on bond and allowed to self-surrender upon designation with the BOP. The government opposes the motion, arguing that defendant's medical conditions
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. Pending now before the Court is defendant's motion to reconsider (Doc. 37). Defendant claims he has certain medical conditions that are exacerbated by the conditions at the St. Clair County jail where he is being housed awaiting transfer to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). Defendant seeks to be released on bond and allowed to self-surrender upon designation with the BOP. The government opposes the motion, arguing that defendant's medical conditions d..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge.
Pending now before the Court is defendant's motion to reconsider (Doc. 37). Defendant claims he has certain medical conditions that are exacerbated by the conditions at the St. Clair County jail where he is being housed awaiting transfer to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). Defendant seeks to be released on bond and allowed to self-surrender upon designation with the BOP. The government opposes the motion, arguing that defendant's medical conditions do not justify defendant's release on bond (Doc. 39).
Having carefully considered defendant's motion, the Court hereby DENIES the same. The United States Marshals Service is responsible for overseeing defendant's medical care, and is able to determine the best site where defendant can obtain that care. Defendant's need for medical care does not change the Court's analysis regarding the need to detain defendant after sentencing. Therefore, defendant's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 37) is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
