MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL J. REAGAN, District Judge.

Two weeks ago, a grand jury indicted seven individuals in the above-captioned case on charges of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances (Count 1).1 Arrest warrants were issued for all seven Defendants. One Defendant (John Weis) was arrested and arraigned in this District on March 2, 2016, before the Honorable Donald G. Wilkerson. Judge Wilkerson ordered Defendant Weis released on a $10,000.00 unsecured appearance bond, subject to release conditions (Doc. 15) and set trial before the undersigned Judge on April 25, 2016.

Two Defendants (Mauricio Romero and Gabriel Gonzalez) were arrested in Arizona and initially appeared in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. See Case No. 16-mj-1520-EJM. On March 2, 2016, a United States Magistrate Judge in Arizona held a detention hearing and ordered the release of Romero and Gonzalez pending trial here. The United States of America (the Government) has moved the undersigned District Judge for de novo review and revocation of the release order, under 18 U.S.C. 3145 (Doc. 12). The Government has ordered a transcript of the Arizona detention hearing and requests the undersigned District Judge to schedule a fresh hearing on the question of detention/release as to these two Defendants.

Romero and Gonzalez have not yet appeared here, and no counsel have been appointed or entered on their behalf. Romero and Gonzalez are scheduled to be arraigned in this District on March 24, 2016. They have been ordered to appear in this courthouse at 10:00 a.m. on March 24, 2016, before Judge Wilkerson. It is anticipated that counsel will be appointed for them (they were given appointed counsel in Arizona) and that Judge Wilkerson will set the same trial date for Romero and Gonzalez which was given to Defendant Weis (April 25, 2016).

18 U.S.C. 3145(a) provides that if a magistrate judge orders a person released, counsel for the Government may file with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense a motion to revoke that order or amend the conditions of release, and the court shall determine the motion promptly. To honor his obligation to promptly determine the motion, the undersigned will schedule the requested hearing as quickly as possible after the arraignment of Romero and Gonzalez. The Court now SETS a hearing on the Government's motion (Doc. 12) for 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 30, 2016. This is four business days after Defendants' arraignment. The undersigned will be in a civil trial that day but sets aside 90 minutes on his docket for this criminal hearing.

Finally, by email request to the undersigned's proposed document inbox (with copies to Arizona and Illinois Government counsel), Defendant Gonzalez's counsel — Richard B. Bacal, who was appointed under the Criminal Justice Act for purposes of the March 3, 2016 Arizona detention hearing — asks leave to file a 5-page pleading. Mr. Bacal's proposed submission is in the nature of a response to the Government's motion for revocation of the release order. Mr. Bacal is not admitted in this District and has not entered for (or been appointed to) represent Defendant Gonzalez in this District, so he was unable to file the response in cm/ecf. Rather than order the Clerk's Office to accept and docket the filing in the above-captioned case, the Court finds it more prudent for Mr. Bacal to provide his response to defense counsel who are appointed or enter an appearance in this District. (The Court will furnish a copy of this Order to Mr. Bacal.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.