U.S. v. MOLINA-SANCHEZ, 3:11-MJ-391. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20120126461
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jan. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2012
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Review of Detention Order (Doc. No. 7). Defendant petitions the court to review the detention order entered by a Magistrate Judge on January 10, 2012. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion is DENIED. The Magistrate Judge's order is appealed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3145(b), which also requires the Court to determine the motion "promptly." The Court has reviewed the motion and finds
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Review of Detention Order (Doc. No. 7). Defendant petitions the court to review the detention order entered by a Magistrate Judge on January 10, 2012. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion is DENIED. The Magistrate Judge's order is appealed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3145(b), which also requires the Court to determine the motion "promptly." The Court has reviewed the motion and finds n..
More
ORDER
FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Review of Detention Order (Doc. No. 7). Defendant petitions the court to review the detention order entered by a Magistrate Judge on January 10, 2012. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion is DENIED.
The Magistrate Judge's order is appealed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), which also requires the Court to determine the motion "promptly." The Court has reviewed the motion and finds no articulated basis for granting a hearing to consider it, and the statute does not require a hearing. In fact, Defendant states no grounds for revoking and amending the Magistrate Judge's detention order and provides no legal or factual basis for doing so. Therefore, Defendant's motion is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
