Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. BENITEZ, 3:15-cr-00105-MOC-DCK. (2015)

Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20150708c70 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 07, 2015
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the court on Defendant's Notice of Appeal and Motion for Revocation of the Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Bond (#60). In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3145(c), the court has promptly considered the appeal of this detention order and Defendant's request for a hearing. Having considered the matter and reviewed the Order of Detention Pending Trial (#31), the transcript and FTR recording of the hearing, and the government's res
More

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on Defendant's Notice of Appeal and Motion for Revocation of the Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Bond (#60). In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c), the court has promptly considered the appeal of this detention order and Defendant's request for a hearing. Having considered the matter and reviewed the Order of Detention Pending Trial (#31), the transcript and FTR recording of the hearing, and the government's response (#67) to Defendant's Notice of Appeal (#60), the court will calendar this matter for a hearing. The parties are advised that in addition to whatever evidence they choose to present to the court, the court will be particularly interested in Defendant's specific contentions as to his severe arthritis, which he argues are putting a significant strain on his health and the jail. Defense counsel is instructed to inform the government ahead of time as to Defendant's specific contentions in this regard so that the government may be prepared to respond at the hearing. The court therefore enters the following Order.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant's Notice of Appeal and Motion for Revocation of the Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Bond (#60) be calendared for a hearing during this court's Charlotte criminal term commencing July 20, 2015.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel in this matter confer prior to the hearing regarding Defendant's contentions so that the government may have an opportunity to fully prepare for the hearing.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer