Section 3145 - Review and appeal of a release or detention order

10 Citing briefs

  1. USA v. CAO et al

    MOTION For An Independent Review

    Filed October 11, 2013

    The motion shall be determined promptly. 18 U.S.C. §3145(b). 4.

  2. USA v. Litvak

    MOTION to Modify Conditions of Release

    Filed September 8, 2014

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JESSE C. LITVAK No. 3:13CR19 (JCH) September 8, 2014 DEFENDANT JESSE C. LITVAK’S MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE Defendant Jesse C. Litvak respectfully moves, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(2), to modify the conditions of his release on bond. Mr. Litvak seeks an Order of the Court removing or suspending the requirement that he actively seek employment, until the time of his self- surrender to the Bureau of Prisons, to permit him to attend to family matters before he begins the court-ordered period of incarceration.

  3. USA v. Brugnara

    MOTION to Revoke Magistrate Court Detention Orders

    Filed June 25, 2014

    1(a)(6); 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(g) and 3145(b). I. Standard of Review Mr. Brugnara may challenge the magistrates’ detention orders before this Court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). The magistrates’ findings should be treated “with no deference,” and this Court “should review the evidence before the magistrate[s] and make its own independent determination whether the magistrate[s’] findings are correct.”

  4. USA v. CAO et al

    BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION

    Filed October 22, 2013

    The proposed release with conditions as outlined herein will amply provide such assurance; no more is necessary. WHEREFORE, this Court, in de novo review, should make a prompt, independent determination concerning Dr. Li’s release, see United States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 761 (7th Cir. 1985); 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). And upon such a prompt review, Dr. Li respectfully submits that this Court should ORDER his immediate release pending the trial of this cause, upon appropriate conditions such as home detention with electronic monitoring, a pledge of a sum of money as security for his appearance from among the assets set forth in the PS-3, regular reporting to probation, and surrender of his and his family’s Passports, as may be required by this Court and by U.S. Probation’s pre-trial services, and for all other relief just and proper in the premises.

  5. USA v. Cilins

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support as to Frederic Cilins re: 11 MOTION to Modify Conditions of Release..

    Filed June 13, 2013

    Rather, on May 29, 2013, filed a motion to amend the conditions of release or reduce bond. The Government never appealed Judge Maas’ order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145, or filed a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 49.1.

  6. USA v. Cilins

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition

    Filed June 6, 2013

    d by Judge Maas are: a $15 million personal recognizance bond secured by five financially responsible persons and further secured by $5 million cash or property; defendant’s travel restricted to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the Southern District of Florida; defendant to surrender all travel documents and make no new applications for travel documents; strict pretrial supervision; home incarceration; electronic monitoring; defendant to be guarded 24 hours per day, seven days per week by a reputable, capable security company approved by the United States attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Court; and the defendant is required to reside at a property owned by the defendant located at Turnberry Isle South. Judge Maas further ordered that the defendant remain detained until all these conditions are met. Case 1:13-cr-00315-KMW Document 13 Filed 06/06/13 Page 13 of 21 13 APPLICABLE LAW When an appeal is taken, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a), from a decision by a magistrate judge to release or bail a defendant, the district court reviews that decision de novo. E.g., United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1985) (“[I]n ruling on a motion for revocation or amendment of a detention order [the district court] should not simply defer to the judgment of the magistrate, but reach its own independent conclusion.”)

  7. USA v. Hecker et al

    REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion

    Filed January 3, 2011

    Instead of properly containing the allegations in its motion for detention to those that occurred after September 7, 2010, the Government revisits the arguments it made in the September 2, 2010 motion for detention that it abandoned in exchange for Hecker’s guilty plea. Since Judge Ericksen’s conditional release order was a final order, the Government could have appealed the order under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c), or moved before Judge Ericksen to revoke Hecker’s release under 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b). The Government’s remedy is not a detention hearing before this Court. Defendant Has Not Committed Any Violations Of Judge Ericksen’s September 7, 2010 Conditional Release Order The Government lists Hecker’s receipt of various funds as well as inconsistencies in his statements offered on October 18, 2010 and October 20, 2010, as evidence that he has violated his conditional release.

  8. USA v. Springer et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion

    Filed May 6, 2010

    CONCLUSION Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, he does not meet the factors necessary to be released on bond pending appeal that are set forth in Title 18, United States Code Section 3143(b). Neither has Defendant clearly shown that there are exceptional reasons why his detention is inappropriate under Title 18 United States Code Section 3145(c). -8- For the foregoing reasons, the United States requests that the Court deny Defendant’s Amended Motion for Release and Stay of Execution of Judgement and for Bond Pending Appeal.

  9. USA v. Springer et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed May 3, 2010

    CONCLUSION Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, he does not meet the factors necessary to be released on bond pending appeal that are set forth in Title 18, United States Code Section 3143(b). Neither has Defendant clearly shown that there are exceptional reasons why his detention is inappropriate under Title 18 United States Code Section 3145(c). For the foregoing reasons, the United States requests that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion for Release.

  10. USA v. Salyer

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed March 23, 2010

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MALCOLM S. SEGAL - 075481 JAMES P. MAYO - 169897 SEGAL & KIRBY LLP 770 L Street, Suite 1440 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 441-0828 Facsimile: (916) 446-6003 Attorneys for Defendant FREDERICK SCOTT SALYER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FREDERICK SCOTT SALYER, Defendant. _____________________________/ CASE NO: 2:10-CR-0061-LKK DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM REGARDING CONDITIONS OF RELEASE AND DUE PROCESS [18 U.S.C. § 3145(b)] _______________________________ Date: March 25, 2010 Time: 9:15 a.m. Judge: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton The defendant does not present a serious risk of flight within the meaning of the Bail Reform Act and should be released from custody. Should the Court, however, believe that conditions of release are necessary to reasonably assure the defendant’s presence at trial, this memorandum proposes such conditions.