U.S. v. BENT, 1:15-cr-00059-JTN-1. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20150505c47
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 04, 2015
Latest Update: May 04, 2015
Summary: ORDER PHILLIP J. GREEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on the United States' motion to detain defendant pending trial. The government sought detention, both on the bases of serious risk of flight and danger to the community. On May 1, 2015, the Court conducted a detention hearing pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. 3142(f). Defendant was represented by counsel. Given the nature of the charges against defendant, the government enjoys a rebuttable presumption in
Summary: ORDER PHILLIP J. GREEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on the United States' motion to detain defendant pending trial. The government sought detention, both on the bases of serious risk of flight and danger to the community. On May 1, 2015, the Court conducted a detention hearing pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. 3142(f). Defendant was represented by counsel. Given the nature of the charges against defendant, the government enjoys a rebuttable presumption in ..
More
ORDER
PHILLIP J. GREEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the United States' motion to detain defendant pending trial. The government sought detention, both on the bases of serious risk of flight and danger to the community. On May 1, 2015, the Court conducted a detention hearing pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Defendant was represented by counsel. Given the nature of the charges against defendant, the government enjoys a rebuttable presumption in favor of detention. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E).
Having considered the parties' oral submissions, the Court finds that defendant has rebutted the statutory presumption regarding serious risk of flight, but he has failed to rebut the presumption regarding danger to the community. Moreover, for the reasons stated on the record, the government has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that defendant poses a danger to the community. In addition, and for the reasons stated on the record, the Court finds that there is no condition or combination of conditions short of detention that would protect the community. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further proceedings in this case, and that he is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
