Filed: Jan. 08, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2020
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION LEONARD T. STRAND , Chief District Judge . This case is before me on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed by Chief United States Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney. See Doc. No. 117. The R&R addresses defendant's motion (Doc. No. 103) for review of detention and the parties' joint recommendation and motion (Doc. No. 116). No party has objected to the R&R and the time for objections has expired. Doc. No. 117 at 3. As such, I will review it for
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION LEONARD T. STRAND , Chief District Judge . This case is before me on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed by Chief United States Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney. See Doc. No. 117. The R&R addresses defendant's motion (Doc. No. 103) for review of detention and the parties' joint recommendation and motion (Doc. No. 116). No party has objected to the R&R and the time for objections has expired. Doc. No. 117 at 3. As such, I will review it for c..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
LEONARD T. STRAND, Chief District Judge.
This case is before me on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed by Chief United States Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney. See Doc. No. 117. The R&R addresses defendant's motion (Doc. No. 103) for review of detention and the parties' joint recommendation and motion (Doc. No. 116). No party has objected to the R&R and the time for objections has expired. Doc. No. 117 at 3. As such, I will review it for clear error. See, e.g., Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996).
Judge Mahoney made the following findings of fact after conducting an evidentiary hearing:
1. Defendant's terminal cancer diagnosis and referral to Hospice Care constitutes an exceptional reason why defendant's continued detention would not be appropriate. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c).
2. With the conditions of release that the parties have proposed, defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety to others or the community. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3143(a)(1), 3145(c).
Doc. No. 117 at 2. Based on these findings, Judge Mahoney recommends that I take the following steps:
1. Grant defendant's motion (Doc. No. 103) and release defendant pending sentencing on the proposed conditions of release (Doc. No. 116-1) with modification from GPS monitoring to RF monitoring (see Doc. 116-1 at 5).
2. Order the United States Marshal keep defendant in custody until notified by United States Probation that defendant has complied with other conditions required for release (to allow for transportation to be arranged prior to defendant's release) (see Doc. 116-1 at 6).
3. Approve United States Probation to complete installation of RF monitoring at Defendant's approved residence in the Central District of Illinois the morning after his release in the Northern District of Iowa (due to the anticipated travel time between districts).
4. Order that the costs for electronic monitoring be waived.
Doc. No. 117 at 2-3.
I find no error — clear or otherwise — in Judge Mahoney's findings and recommendations. I therefore accept the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 117) without modification. As such:
1. Defendant's motion (Doc. No. 103) and the parties' joint recommendation and motion (Doc. No. 116) are both granted.
2. The United States Marshal shall keep defendant in custody until notified by United States Probation that defendant has complied with other conditions required for release (to allow for transportation to be arranged prior to defendant's release). Once the United States Marshal receives such notification, defendant shall be released pending sentencing pursuant to the conditions of release attached to this order.
3. United States Probation may complete the installation of RF monitoring at defendant's approved residence in the Central District of Illinois on the morning after his release in the Northern District of Iowa.
4. The costs typically charged to defendants for electronic monitoring are hereby waived.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
