United States v. Hernandez-Ramirez, 18-CR-279. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20191219f68
Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PERMIT OUT-OF-DISTRICT TRAVEL ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on defendant's "Motion to Permit Out-of-District Travel." Dkt. #43. Defendant requests an order permitting him to travel to Corcoran, California to spend the holidays with family. Id. The government opposes defendant's motion, and Pretrial Services does not endorse defendant's travel while on location monitoring. See Dkt. #44. As a condition of release on appeara
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PERMIT OUT-OF-DISTRICT TRAVEL ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on defendant's "Motion to Permit Out-of-District Travel." Dkt. #43. Defendant requests an order permitting him to travel to Corcoran, California to spend the holidays with family. Id. The government opposes defendant's motion, and Pretrial Services does not endorse defendant's travel while on location monitoring. See Dkt. #44. As a condition of release on appearan..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PERMIT OUT-OF-DISTRICT TRAVEL
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's "Motion to Permit Out-of-District Travel." Dkt. #43. Defendant requests an order permitting him to travel to Corcoran, California to spend the holidays with family. Id. The government opposes defendant's motion, and Pretrial Services does not endorse defendant's travel while on location monitoring. See Dkt. #44.
As a condition of release on appearance bond, defendant's "[t]ravel is restricted to Western District of Washington, or as directed by Pretrial Services." Dkt. #21 at 1. The Court shares the concerns of the government and Pretrial Services, namely regarding the difficulty of supervising a defendant on location monitoring outside of the district, and the possibility that defendant could flee. Dkt. #44 at 2.
Defendant's "Motion to Permit Out-of-District Travel" (Dkt. #43) is therefore DENIED.
Source: Leagle
