U.S. v. LEWIS, 2:14cr1 KS-MTP. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20140506d39
Visitors: 32
Filed: May 05, 2014
Latest Update: May 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER KEITH STARRETT, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Motion for Review of Detention Order [51] filed by Warren Lewis, by and through his counsel, and Response thereto [52] by the Government. The Court has considered the request and finds as follows: 1. In the Government's Response, the U.S. Attorney states that he is in opposition to modification of the Detention Order; and 2. That pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3143(a)(2) the Court is required as follows: (2) The judicial office
Summary: ORDER KEITH STARRETT, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Motion for Review of Detention Order [51] filed by Warren Lewis, by and through his counsel, and Response thereto [52] by the Government. The Court has considered the request and finds as follows: 1. In the Government's Response, the U.S. Attorney states that he is in opposition to modification of the Detention Order; and 2. That pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3143(a)(2) the Court is required as follows: (2) The judicial officer..
More
ORDER
KEITH STARRETT, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on Motion for Review of Detention Order [51] filed by Warren Lewis, by and through his counsel, and Response thereto [52] by the Government. The Court has considered the request and finds as follows:
1. In the Government's Response, the U.S. Attorney states that he is in opposition to modification of the Detention Order; and
2. That pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3143(a)(2) the Court is required as follows:
(2) The judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense in a case described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (f)(1) of Section 3142 and is awaiting imposition or execution of sentence be detained unless —
(A)(i) the judicial officer finds that there is a substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial be granted; or
(ii) an attorney for the Government has recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed on the person; and
(B) the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any person or the community.
The Court finds that (2)(A) has not been complied with and it is necessary that both parts of (A) be complied with or the Court is required to detain the Defendant.
The Court has also taken note that the Defendant's earlier release on bond was unsuccessful and that the Court has been presented with an Investigative Report showing what could be interpreted as an attempted escape by the movant.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Review of Detention be denied.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
