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. Daniells

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

May 23, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
MITCHELL DANIELLS, Defendant.

          ORDER

          O'TOOLE, D.J.

         This Order resolves the following pending motions:

1. The defendant's Assented-To Motion for Leave to Extend Deadline to File Pretrial Motions (dkt. no. 136) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
2. The defendant's Assented-To Motion to Continue Suppression Hearing for a Date Set by Court after His Filing Date (dkt. no. 137) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
3. The defendant's Motion to File Two Pleadings under Seal (dkt. no. 139) is GRANTED. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include -Leave to file granted on [date of order]- in the caption of the document.
4. After review of the relevant papers, and having received no objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (dkt. no. 115) recommending denial of the defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Detention Hearing (dkt. no. 109), the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the defendant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

         It is SO ORDERED.

         REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON #109, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DETENTION

          KELLEY, U.S.M.J.

         The defendant is charged by indictment with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), possession of a firearm by a person under indictment for a felony offense. Mr. Daniells was indicted on June 16, 2015. He was arrested on June 18, and had his initial appearance in this court on that date. The government moved for detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (f)(1)(E) (offense involves a firearm);(f)(2)(A) (serious risk of flight); and (f)(2)(B) (serious risk that person will obstruct justice), arguing that he is a danger to the community and poses a serious risk of flight. On June 25 he was arraigned and had a detention hearing, but after cross-examining the government's witness, defense counsel asked for a continuance to July 1, 2015 to conclude the hearing. On July 1 counsel asked the court to enter a voluntary order of detention, which the court did (#19).

         On May 25, 2016, defendant moved for release (#63). A detention hearing was held before this court on June 17, 2016 where the parties proceeded by proffer. On that same date the court issued an order allowing the government's motion for detention (#69). The court found that the government met its burden on danger but not on risk of flight, id. at 5-6.

         Mr. Daniells appealed the order of detention to the District Court, O'Toole, J. (#74). Judge O'Toole held a hearing on June 30, 2017 and took the matter under advisement (#77). Judge O'Toole ordered a transcript of the detention hearing of June 17, 2016 (#75), and ordered Pretrial Services to update the report that previously had been prepared (#78). The government and defendant filed memoranda (##80, 81.) On August 1, Judge O'Toole denied the motion for release from custody (#82). He disagreed with this court's finding that Mr. Daniells was not a flight risk, and found that Mr. Daniells was both a danger and a flight risk, id. at 2.

         Mr. Daniells appealed the District Court's order to the First Circuit on August 5, 2016 (#86). That appeal was denied on October 31, 2016 as the First Circuit found that it would not reach “a different result” and that affirmance was appropriate, citing United States v. O'Brien, 895 F.2d 810, 814 (1st Cir. 1990) (#104). Defendant then moved for reconsideration before the District ...


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.