United States of America v. Rady, CR-04-00585-001-PHX-FJM. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20180129568
Visitors: 20
Filed: Jan. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 25, 2018
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. MARTONE , Senior District Judge . The court has before it Rady's Motion to Vacate Release Hearing (Doc. 113), the Government's Response (Doc. 114), and the Pretrial Services Report dated January 17, 2018 (Doc. 112). After rushing to get released, Rady now believes that his original release date (apparently February 6, 2018) is more favorable to him than the order he obtained at the Court of Appeals because he does not like the recommendation of the Pretrial Services offi
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. MARTONE , Senior District Judge . The court has before it Rady's Motion to Vacate Release Hearing (Doc. 113), the Government's Response (Doc. 114), and the Pretrial Services Report dated January 17, 2018 (Doc. 112). After rushing to get released, Rady now believes that his original release date (apparently February 6, 2018) is more favorable to him than the order he obtained at the Court of Appeals because he does not like the recommendation of the Pretrial Services offic..
More
ORDER
FREDERICK J. MARTONE, Senior District Judge.
The court has before it Rady's Motion to Vacate Release Hearing (Doc. 113), the Government's Response (Doc. 114), and the Pretrial Services Report dated January 17, 2018 (Doc. 112).
After rushing to get released, Rady now believes that his original release date (apparently February 6, 2018) is more favorable to him than the order he obtained at the Court of Appeals because he does not like the recommendation of the Pretrial Services officer that he be placed in a residential treatment center. He now asks us to ignore the order of the Court of Appeals and vacate the hearing we were required to set at his insistence. But our reading of the order of the Court of Appeals suggests that it cannot be ignored simply because the defendant changed his mind. The Mandate has not issued. We can do nothing here until the Mandate issues except to the extent the Court of Appeals has otherwise ordered.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED DENYING Rady's Motion to Vacate Release Hearing (Doc. 113). Of course, Rady is free to go back to the Court of Appeals and get it to vacate its release order.
Source: Leagle
