United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
Reidinger United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court upon the Defendant's
Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Detention Order of
Magistrate Judge [Doc. 61].
5, 2019, the Defendant was charged in a Bill of Indictment
with one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess
with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846; one count of possession
with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a
detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and one count of distribution of at
least five grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). [Doc. 1]. The Defendant's
initial appearance was held before the Honorable W. Carleton
Metcalf, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 3, 2019, at
which time the Defendant was appointed counsel. The
Government moved for detention of the Defendant pending
trial. The Defendant waived the applicable time limits so
that a hearing on the motion could be scheduled in Asheville.
detention hearing was held on July 15, 2019. At the hearing,
the Government proffered for the Court's consideration
the Pretrial Services report, which outlines the
Defendant's criminal history. The Government also called
Brian Leopard, a law enforcement officer with the Swain
County Sheriff's Office who also serves as a task force
officer with the DEA. The Defendant offered the testimony of
his niece, Ashley Bjorneboe.
conclusion of the hearing, Judge Metcalf ordered the
Defendant to be detained. A Detention Order was entered on
July 16, 2019. [Doc. 57].
26, 2019, defense counsel filed the present motion, seeking
review and revocation of the detention order. [Doc. 61].
STANDARD OF REVIEW
18 of the United States Code, section 3145, governs the
review and appeal of detention orders. This statute provides,
in pertinent part, as follows:
If 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. The motion shall be determined
18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). In reviewing a motion to revoke or
amend an order of detention, the Court reviews the Magistrate
Judge's Order de novo. United
States v. Stewart, 19 Fed.Appx. 46, 48 (4th Cir.
2001). The Court “must make an independent
determination of the proper pretrial detention or conditions
of release.” Id.
3142 of Title 18 of the United States Code provides that if,
after holding a hearing, the Court finds that “no
condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure
the appearance of the person as required and the safety of
any other person and the community, ” the Court shall
order the detention of the person pending trial. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(e)(1). There is a presumption of detention,
rebuttable by the defendant, if the Court finds that there is
probable cause to believe that the defendant committed
certain enumerated offenses. See 18 U.S.C. §
determining whether detention pending trial is appropriate,
the Court ...