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. Engel

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 13, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
TODD C. ENGEL, Defendant.

          ORDER

          GLORIA M. NAVARRO, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         Pending before the Court is Defendant Todd C. Engel's (“Defendant's”) Motion for Release Pending Sentence or Appeal, (ECF No. 3180). The Government filed a Response, (ECF No. 3198), and Defendant filed a Reply, (ECF No. 3204).[1] For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On March 2, 2016, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Nevada returned a Superseding Indictment charging nineteen defendants with sixteen counts related to a confrontation on April 12, 2014, with Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) Officers in Bunkerville, Nevada. (ECF No. 27). Defendant was grouped with tier three defendants and was part of the first group of defendants that went to trial. (Order, ECF No. 1098). At the conclusion of Defendant's trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of Count Twelve, obstruction of justice, and Count Sixteen, interstate travel in aid of extortion. (Jury Verdict, ECF No. 1903).

         Subsequent to Defendant's trial, the tier one defendants proceeded to trial. (Order, ECF No. 1098). On December 20, 2017, the Court declared a mistrial for the tier one defendants, finding that the Government's failure to disclose evidence to the tier one defendants resulted in numerous Brady violations. (Mins. of Proceedings, ECF No. 3041). Following the Court's declaration of mistrial, the Court found that dismissal with prejudice was necessary. (Mins. of Proceedings, ECF No. 3116). In the instant Motion, Defendant argues that it is likely he will be granted a new trial, and based on this reasoning he should be released pending sentencing or appeal. (Mot. for Release 9:9-10, ECF No. 3180).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. Release Pending Sentence

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143, the Court is required to order a convicted defendant detained pending sentencing so long as the guideline range recommends a term of imprisonment. However, the Court may release a defendant awaiting imposition of a sentence if (1) there is a substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted; and (2) the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2).

         “The burden of establishing that the defendant will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community rests with the defendant.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(c). This is a high burden to satisfy. See United States v. Masters, No. 2:12-cr-00145-MMD-GWF, 2013 WL 5308204, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 18, 2013).

         B. Release Pending Appeal

         Under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1), a defendant may not be granted bond pending appeal unless (1) the defendant proves by “clear and convincing evidence that [he] is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released, ” and (2) the defendant's appeal is not brought 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)(1). This statute creates a presumption against post-conviction release and places the burden of meeting the criteria squarely on the Defendant, United States v. Wheeler, 795 F.2d 839, 840 (9th Cir. 1986), and it is a heavy burden. United States v. Gerald N., 900 F.2d 189, 191 (9th Cir. 1990); see United States v. Handy, 761 F.2d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Montoya, 908 F.2d 450, 451 (9th Cir. 1990).

         III. ...


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.