U.S. v. HUBBARD, 3:12-CR-239. (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20140603b81
Visitors: 20
Filed: Jun. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 02, 2014
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Hubbard's Motion to Transfer Pretrial Release Supervision (Doc. No. 551) and the Government's Response (Doc. No. 565). Defendant seeks to have his supervision transferred to the Southern District of Texas so that he may reside with a long-term friend and attempt to obtain employment there. The Government opposes his request in light of a previous bond violation, and also because Defendant has no family in Ho
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Hubbard's Motion to Transfer Pretrial Release Supervision (Doc. No. 551) and the Government's Response (Doc. No. 565). Defendant seeks to have his supervision transferred to the Southern District of Texas so that he may reside with a long-term friend and attempt to obtain employment there. The Government opposes his request in light of a previous bond violation, and also because Defendant has no family in Hou..
More
ORDER
GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Hubbard's Motion to Transfer Pretrial Release Supervision (Doc. No. 551) and the Government's Response (Doc. No. 565). Defendant seeks to have his supervision transferred to the Southern District of Texas so that he may reside with a long-term friend and attempt to obtain employment there. The Government opposes his request in light of a previous bond violation, and also because Defendant has no family in Houston, Texas and does not actually have employment lined up there. The Court shares the Government's concerns. Given his previous bond violation and the inadequacy of Defendant's proposed relocation, the Court finds that transferring Defendant's pretrial supervision to the Southern District of Texas is inappropriate at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion (Doc. No. 551) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
