U.S. v. McCLINTON, 2:10CR160-SA-JMV. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20120411790
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER JANE M. VIRDEN, Magistrate Judge. Before the court is the motion (# 476) of Defendant Mario Ladell McClinton for reconsideration of bond. The court has considered the motion, the government's response and the record and is of the opinion that the motion should be denied for the following reasons. On July 11, 2011, at the conclusion of a detention hearing, Magistrate Judge Alexander ordered that the defendant be detained pending trial. Judge Alexander found the defendant had not rebutte
Summary: ORDER JANE M. VIRDEN, Magistrate Judge. Before the court is the motion (# 476) of Defendant Mario Ladell McClinton for reconsideration of bond. The court has considered the motion, the government's response and the record and is of the opinion that the motion should be denied for the following reasons. On July 11, 2011, at the conclusion of a detention hearing, Magistrate Judge Alexander ordered that the defendant be detained pending trial. Judge Alexander found the defendant had not rebutted..
More
ORDER
JANE M. VIRDEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is the motion (# 476) of Defendant Mario Ladell McClinton for reconsideration of bond. The court has considered the motion, the government's response and the record and is of the opinion that the motion should be denied for the following reasons.
On July 11, 2011, at the conclusion of a detention hearing, Magistrate Judge Alexander ordered that the defendant be detained pending trial. Judge Alexander found the defendant had not rebutted the presumption that no conditions of release would reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community. Further, Judge Alexander found that detention was warranted based on clear and convincing evidence regarding the defendant's criminal history. Here, the defendant has failed to present any new information that would have a material bearing on the issue of whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure his appearance as required and the safety of the community. Accordingly, the court agrees with the government that a new hearing would be a waste of judicial resources. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the instant motion is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
