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. Hargrave

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division

October 30, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JENEE LYNN HARGRAVE (05)

          DRELL JUDGE

          ORDER

          PATRICK J. HANNA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the Court is pro se Defendant Jenee Lynn Hargrave's (05) Motion for Bond Pending Court's Ruling [Doc. 538], filed on October 15, 2018. On October 16, 2018, the Court deferred ruling on the motion, in order to allow the Government ten (10) days within which to file any response thereto. [Rec. Doc. 539]. No. response was filed.

         On September 15, 2015 Hargrave pled guilty to Count I of the Indictment which charged her with Conspiracy To Distribute and Possess With Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine. [Rec. Doc. 327]. The conviction carried a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years and she was sentenced accordingly on January 14, 2016 with credit for time served. [Rec. Docs. 446, 448]. She also received five years of supervised release. [Rec. Doc. 448]. She did not appeal her conviction nor did she file a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

         On February 9, 2017 Hargrave filed a motion for Hardship Credit for Hardtime Served. [Rec. Doc. 488]. This Court recommended the motion be denied [Rec. Doc. 491], which was adopted by the district court on April 11, 2017. [Rec. Doc. 505]. On October 1, 2018 Hargrave filed a Motion for Relief under Rule 60 which is presently pending for Report and Recommendation before this Court. [Rec. Doc. 536]. The Government has not yet filed its response. By the instant motion, Hargrave seeks to be released pending a decision on the Rule 60 motion. For the reasons which follow, the motion is DENIED.

         In her Rule 60 motion, Hargrave essentially seeks to have her sentence set aside as illegal and caused by “conflict and fraud” in that one of the agents who investigated her case pleaded guilty to a federal crime and was sentenced to prison - a fact she contends was withheld from her. Also woven within the merits of the Rule 60 motion are issues that would have been properly raised by a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2255. Thus, the motion before the Court is not exactly a motion seeking bail pending appeal or a writ of certiorari which would clearly be governed by the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et. seq. Rather, it is more likely governed by F.R.A.P. 23. Nonetheless, Hargrave contends that whether she should or should not be released pending a decision on the Rule 60 motion is governed by section 3143 of the Bail Reform Act. The Court reaches the same conclusion under either analysis.

         Subparagraph (b) of section 3143 provides in pertinent part:

(b) Release or detention Pending Appeal by the Defendant -
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, be detained unless the judicial officer finds -
(A) 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 under section 3142(b) or (c) of this title; and
(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact that is likely to result in -
(i) reversal;
(ii) an order for a new trial;
(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of ...

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.