Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Oliveira

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

United States of America,
v.
Caetano Oliveira, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          Nathaniel M. Gorton United States District Judge

         Defendant Caetano Oliveira (“Oliveira” or “defendant”) is awaiting trial subject to a detention order entered by United States Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler. Currently before the Court is defendant's motion to review that order.

         I. Background

         A. Procedural History

         On September 14, 2016, a grand jury returned a one-count indictment charging Oliveira with felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The indictment alleges that Oliveira, having been previously convicted of a felony, possessed a 9mm handgun, a .40 caliber pistol and ammunition for both weapons.

         Oliveira's initial appearance took place before United States Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein in September, 2016. He was detained until his detention hearing and arraignment, which was scheduled for September 29, 2016, before Magistrate Judge Bowler. At that initial hearing, Oliveira agreed to an order of voluntary detention without prejudice.

         On December 13, 2016, Magistrate Judge Bowler held a second detention hearing, at defendant's request, during which the parties presented evidence. Magistrate Judge Bowler subsequently entered an order of detention.

         B. Magistrate Judge Bowler's Findings

         Magistrate Judge Bowler based her detention order upon a finding that the defendant posed a danger to the community. Those findings were based on the testimony of Special Agent Christopher Kefalas of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) and two documents that were admitted into evidence: 1) a summary of incident reports describing defendant's past convictions and 2) a disciplinary report from the Plymouth County Correctional Facility. Magistrate Judge Bowler did not conclude that defendant posed a risk of flight.

         Defendant “appealed” that order to this session but the Court has treated that pleading as a motion to review the detention order. The court held a hearing on February 23, 2017 and, for the reasons stated below, defendant's motion will be denied.

         II. Defendant's “Appeal” of the Detention Order

         Defendant requests that he be released from custody and be allowed to live with his mother in Brockton, Massachusetts. He offers to remain in the home at all times, except for necessary court appearances, and wear a monitoring device.

         As a threshold matter, defendant, a pretrial detainee, seeks review of the detention order under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) but such review is properly governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). Whereas § 3145(c) permits appeals to the Circuit Courts of Appeals, § 3145(b) permits review by a district judge of a detention order entered by a magistrate judge:

[i]f a person is ordered detained by a magistrate judge . . . the person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation or amendment of the order. Accordingly, the Court will construe defendant's “appeal” as a motion under § 3145(b) for an amendment of the detention ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.