United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant Brent Edward Lovett's
motion for release on recognizance pending review. (ECF No.
300). The government has filed a response (ECF No. 301), and
defendant has filed a reply (ECF No. 302).
before the court is defendant's motion for leave to file
excess pages in support of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
petition. (ECF No. 298). The government did not file a
response to this motion. Although the petition appears to be
mixed with extensive recitations of the record and is of
considerable length, it possesses an organized structure and
contains intelligible arguments. See (ECF No.
298-3); see also LR 7-2(d). That motion will be
seven-day trial, defendant was convicted of one count of bank
fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, on February 27, 2013. (ECF No.
April 5, 2013, Judge Hunt denied defendant's motion to
dismiss the indictment and enter a judgment of acquittal or
for a new trial. (ECF No. 211). On May 29, 2013, that court
sentenced defendant to a 98-month term of custody and a
five-year term of supervised release. (ECF Nos. 226, 229). On
August 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction
(ECF No. 292), and the Supreme Court denied defendant's
petition for a writ of certiorari (ECF No. 297).
April 19, 2017, Judge Mahan began presiding over the instant
case. (ECF No. 299).
asks that this court release him from custody on his own
recognizance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b) until his
habeas petition is adjudicated. (ECF No. 300). Lovett
discusses his “perfect record” while incarcerated
and argues that his 73-point habeas petition raises
substantial issues that merit his release pending that
petition's adjudication. (Id. at 5-11).
Lovett argues that personal and familial health issues merit
his release. (Id.). Specifically, he asserts that he
has celiac disease and that he suffers from sigmoid
diverticulosis stemming “from complications due to
celiac disease.” (Id. at 13). He also posits
that seven family members have passed away in recent years,
his mother “is in the final days of life” due to
“squamous cell carcinoma, ” and his sister broke
bones in her upper body by falling into a construction
trench. (Id. at 14).
defendant states that he hopes to take care of his mother and
sister upon release. (Id.).
government responds by citing Ninth Circuit case law
suggesting that the circuit has not determined if
“district courts have the authority to grant bail
pending resolution of a habeas petition.” United
States v. McCandless, 841 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 2016).
Additionally, the government points out that Lovett has
“provide[d] no support” for the existence of his
personal ailments and that his family's difficulties are
not extraordinary circumstances because “it is not at
all uncommon for the families of convicted felons to suffer
when they are incarcerated.” (ECF No. 301 at 5).
reply that McCandless discussed a state prisoner
convicted in state court is incorrect. (ECF No. 302). Like
here, that case involved a federal prisoner's submission
of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition.
McCandless, 841 F.3d at 821.
Lovett also incorrectly suggests that his § 2255
petition's sheer volume of alleged errors is conclusive
that there is a substantial question that threatens his
conviction. See (ECF No. 302). Defendant has also
made his health concerns clear but has not indicated his
administrative efforts to find relief. See (ECF No.
300). Finally, defendant's cited portion of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3143 refers to a defendant's release upon
Lovett's motion for release pending review of his habeas
petition is unpersuasive.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that
defendant's motion for release on recognizance pending
review (ECF No. 300) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion for leave to file
excess pages (ECF No. 298) be, ...