United States District Court, D. Nevada
J. Dawson United States District Judge.
before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Release
Pending Appeal (#514). Plaintiff filed a response (#518) to
which Defendant replied (#522).
March 23, 2017, a jury found Dr. Henri Wetselaar
(“Defendant”) guilty of multiple felony counts.
On August 1, 2017, Defendant was sentenced. On August 4,
2017, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal, and then an Amended
Notice of Appeal on August 11, 2017. Defendant claims he is
entitled to release pending appeal pursuant to Title 18
U.S.C. §§ 3143(b) and 3142(g).
2, 2017, the Court denied Defendant's Motion for Release
Pending Sentencing (#490). Defendant failed to rebut the
presumption that no condition or combination of conditions
would reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the
community if he were to be released. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(e), (f); 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2).
Defendant's argument in his Motion for Release Pending
Appeal states Defendant “continues to meet the three
criteria for release pending appeal pursuant to §
3143(b) and § 3142(g) despite the Government's
claims to the contrary.” However, Defendant fails to
present any new argument beyond what he put forth in his
previously denied Motion for Release Pending Sentencing
defendant may be released pending appeal only where the court
finds “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, ” and
that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a
substantial question of law or fact likely to result in: (i)
reversal; (ii) an order for a new trial; (iii) a sentence
that does not include a term of imprisonment; or (iv) 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).
factors the court considers when making the determination of
whether a person is “likely to flee or pose a danger to
the safety” of the community are:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
including whether the offense is a crime of violence, a
violation of section 1591, a Federal crime of terrorism, or
involves a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm,
explosive, or destructive device; (2) the weight of the
evidence against the person; (3) the history of the person,
including  the person's character, physical and mental
condition, family ties, employment, financial resources,
length of residency in the community, community ties, past
conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal
history, and record concerning appearance at court
proceedings . . .; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the
danger to any person or the community that would be posed by
the person's release.
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
has failed to put forth any new argument that would change
the calculus of this Court's previous evaluation of
Defendant's Motion for Release Pending Sentencing. The
Court's reasoning in its previous order denying
Defendant's request for release relied on the same 18
U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors that control the present
analysis. Defendant does not provide the Court with updated
medical information, but instead reiterates his 2016 medical
status, which the Court has already considered. Additionally,
Defendant's condition did not appear to have deteriorated
at the time of sentencing. He has presented no new
information as to why the treatment he is receiving in
custody is insufficient, or that there is a need for
specialized treatment that is unavailable to him while he is
Defendant has failed to show that his appeal raises any
substantial question of law or fact likely to result in a
reversal, new trial, or reduction of his sentence. Defendant
states his appeal “will raise several substantial
questions of fact and law related to his conviction”