U.S. v. WASHINGTON, 3:11-2064-JFA. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20120305842
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. The defendant has moved, for a second time, for reconsideration of the decision of the United States Magistrate Judge to deny bond in this case. In an earlier motion, dated December 15, 2011, the defendant suggested that changed circumstances warranted a fresh look at his bond request. After reviewing a transcript of the information made known to the Magistrate Judge at the bond hearing before her, this court entered a January 5, 2012 order denyin
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. The defendant has moved, for a second time, for reconsideration of the decision of the United States Magistrate Judge to deny bond in this case. In an earlier motion, dated December 15, 2011, the defendant suggested that changed circumstances warranted a fresh look at his bond request. After reviewing a transcript of the information made known to the Magistrate Judge at the bond hearing before her, this court entered a January 5, 2012 order denying..
More
ORDER
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.
The defendant has moved, for a second time, for reconsideration of the decision of the United States Magistrate Judge to deny bond in this case. In an earlier motion, dated December 15, 2011, the defendant suggested that changed circumstances warranted a fresh look at his bond request. After reviewing a transcript of the information made known to the Magistrate Judge at the bond hearing before her, this court entered a January 5, 2012 order denying the motion for bond.
The matter is now once again before the court with a motion, again dated December 15, 2011, seeking to revisit the bond issue based upon changed circumstances. The court has carefully reviewed all of the information contained in the most recent motion and finds no reason to disturb its earlier decision. Accordingly, the motion (ECF No. 375) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
