Order Denying Motion for Release on Personal Recognizance Bond Pending Appeal

[ECF No.69]

ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.

Defendant Lazareo Jones moves for release while his appeal is pending. ECF No. 69. A court may order a defendant released pending appeal if it finds (1) "by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released," (2) "that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay'" and the appeal "raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in . . . reversal [or] a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process." 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1).

Jones contends that his appeal will confirm his position that he has already served more time than should have been imposed had I followed the parties' overall agreement on the resolution of this case and Jones's related case (2:16-cr-274-KJD-GWF). His arguments in that regard may be deemed substantial questions and would result in a reduced sentence to a term less than what he has already served. But Jones has not satisfied the first prong of § 3143(b), a showing by clear and convincing evidence that he does not pose a danger to the safety of others or the community. As I discussed at his revocation hearing, Jones has a significant criminal history. He has been convicted of various drug-related offenses, obstructing police officers, domestic battery, and pandering. Several times, bench warrants had to be issued for his failure to attend court hearings. In this case, he was convicted of illegally possessing a weapon and has admitted to violating five conditions of supervised release, including possession of a weapon and tampering with his location-monitoring bracelet.

Jones argues that his behavior will be kept in check because he now wants to care for his children and, if released, he'll be under conditions of supervision in the other related case. But Jones has had children for ten years and that has not deterred him from repeatedly breaking the law. More importantly, Jones was under supervision in this case and repeatedly violated those conditions. And before that, he repeatedly violated terms of release in the state court system. There is little evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, that Jones will change his ways this time and no longer pose a danger to the community.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Jones's motion for release pending appeal (ECF No. 69) is DENIED.