U.S. v. MITCHELL, 4:14CR00151-05-JLH. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20141224714
Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2014
Summary: ORDER JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Mitchell's Motion seeking another opportunity to attend an inpatient rehabilitation program (Doc. No. 86). The government responded in opposition to this request (Doc. No.88) and Mitchell replied (Doc. No. 91). The Court has carefully considered the Request and Response. The Court agrees with the defense that the Motion is properly before the Court. However, the Court finds the Motion should be denied. Ms. Mitchell was alre
Summary: ORDER JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Mitchell's Motion seeking another opportunity to attend an inpatient rehabilitation program (Doc. No. 86). The government responded in opposition to this request (Doc. No.88) and Mitchell replied (Doc. No. 91). The Court has carefully considered the Request and Response. The Court agrees with the defense that the Motion is properly before the Court. However, the Court finds the Motion should be denied. Ms. Mitchell was alrea..
More
ORDER
JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Mitchell's Motion seeking another opportunity to attend an inpatient rehabilitation program (Doc. No. 86). The government responded in opposition to this request (Doc. No.88) and Mitchell replied (Doc. No. 91).
The Court has carefully considered the Request and Response. The Court agrees with the defense that the Motion is properly before the Court. However, the Court finds the Motion should be denied.
Ms. Mitchell was already afforded an opportunity for release to inpatient rehabilitation treatment at taxpayer expense. Ms. Mitchell squandered this opportunity. Before releasing Ms. Mitchell on September 25, 2014, the Court explained in great detail the penalties for failing to follow the Order Setting Conditions of Release (Doc. No. 47). Ms. Mitchell immediately fled from supervision and failed to report for inpatient treatment — requiring the United States Marshal Service to hunt her down. Based on her actions, the Court finds Ms. Mitchell is a serious flight risk. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2). While sympathetic to Ms. Mitchell's addiction, given the facts of this case, the Court is not persuaded she will not flee from treatment.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion (Doc. No. 86) is DENIED. Defendant is to remain in the custody of the United States Marshal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
