U.S. v. IU, 1:17-cr-054. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. North Dakota
Number: infdco20170501m69
Visitors: 4
Filed: Apr. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 27, 2017
Summary: ORDER CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is "Motion to Reconsider Order of Detention" filed by defendant on April 25, 2017. The court convened a detention hearing on April 13, 2017. Finding that the Government had proven a preponderance of evidence that defendant was a flight risk, by a preponderance of evidence that there was a serious risk that defendant would obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, and by clear and convincing evidence that defendant posed a dan
Summary: ORDER CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is "Motion to Reconsider Order of Detention" filed by defendant on April 25, 2017. The court convened a detention hearing on April 13, 2017. Finding that the Government had proven a preponderance of evidence that defendant was a flight risk, by a preponderance of evidence that there was a serious risk that defendant would obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, and by clear and convincing evidence that defendant posed a dang..
More
ORDER
CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is "Motion to Reconsider Order of Detention" filed by defendant on April 25, 2017. The court convened a detention hearing on April 13, 2017. Finding that the Government had proven a preponderance of evidence that defendant was a flight risk, by a preponderance of evidence that there was a serious risk that defendant would obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, and by clear and convincing evidence that defendant posed a danger to others or the community, the court ordered defendant detained pending final disposition of this matter. Defendant requests that the court reconsider its order and release him to his sister's residence, an option that was not discussed at his detention hearing. The Government filed a response in opposition to defendant's motion.
Defendant's proposed living arrangements do very little if anything to alleviate the serious risks he poses given his extensive criminal history, history of assaultive behavior against alleged the victim in this case, history of noncompliance with this court's order, and the evidence presented by the Government at the detention hearing regarding his efforts to contact the alleged victim following his arrest in this case. Defendant's motion (Docket No. 29) is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
