Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

USA v. Foondle, 1:17-cr-056. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. North Dakota Number: infdco20171116e09 Visitors: 10
Filed: Nov. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 15, 2017
Summary: ORDER CHARLES S. MILLER, JR. , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is a "Motion to Amend Detention Order/Motion for Release to Halfway House" filed by defendant on November 14, 2017. Defendant was remanded to custody following a detention hearing on October 18, 2017. He now requests to be placed on the waiting list for a residential facility placement and released when space becomes available. He advises that the Government has no objection his request. Having reviewed the record, the cour
More

ORDER

Before the court is a "Motion to Amend Detention Order/Motion for Release to Halfway House" filed by defendant on November 14, 2017. Defendant was remanded to custody following a detention hearing on October 18, 2017. He now requests to be placed on the waiting list for a residential facility placement and released when space becomes available. He advises that the Government has no objection his request.

Having reviewed the record, the court is not inclined to grant defendant's request. The court previously ordered defendant detained pending trial, finding that the Government had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant was a flight risk and by clear and convincing evidence that there were no conditions it could impose upon defendant of reasonably ensure the safety of other persons or the community. In making its finding, the court took particular note of the nature of the alleged offenses and the presumption of detention, defendant's criminal history, defendant's history of flight, and defendant's history of noncompliance with court orders. Given defendant's record, the court remains unconvinced that defendant is a suitable candidate for a residential facility placement. Even if the defendant was added to the waiting list for a residential facility placement, the chances that space would open up for him in the near term appears beyond remote given the sheer number of defendants on already on the waiting list coupled with the likelihood of others appearing going forward that are more deserving of a placement.

Defendant's motion (Doc. No. 148) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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