U.S. v. Santos-Portillo, 7:18-CR-10-1H. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20180327g85
Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM J. HOWARD , District Judge . This matter is before the court on the appeal by defendant of an order issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones on January 31, 2018, [DE #17], detaining defendant pending trial. The court has carefully reviewed this matter and finding the Magistrate Judge's decision in accordance with law, the appeal is DENIED. The order of detention of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. 1 FootNotes 1. The court notes a clerical error in
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM J. HOWARD , District Judge . This matter is before the court on the appeal by defendant of an order issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones on January 31, 2018, [DE #17], detaining defendant pending trial. The court has carefully reviewed this matter and finding the Magistrate Judge's decision in accordance with law, the appeal is DENIED. The order of detention of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. 1 FootNotes 1. The court notes a clerical error in ..
More
ORDER
MALCOLM J. HOWARD, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on the appeal by defendant of an order issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones on January 31, 2018, [DE #17], detaining defendant pending trial.
The court has carefully reviewed this matter and finding the Magistrate Judge's decision in accordance with law, the appeal is DENIED. The order of detention of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED.1
FootNotes
1. The court notes a clerical error in the detention order, [DE #17]. Considering the Magistrate Judge stated at the detention hearing "[t]he evidence presented in argument of counsel is clearly focused on risk of nonappearance. I don't think we heard anything relating to danger — directly to danger in this case," [DE #21 at 33], the appropriate box to check on page 2 of the detention order under "Alternate Findings (B)," was "(1) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear," instead of "(2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the community." [DE #17 at 2]. Therefore, the detention order shall be deemed amended in accordance with the hearing transcript, [DE #21 at 33].
Source: Leagle
