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. Miftakhov

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

February 28, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
VLADISLAV MIFTAKHOV, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge.

Before the Court is the Government's motion for revocation of release order (ECF No. 13). After holding a second detention hearing, the Court now finds by clear and convincing evidence that the motion should be granted.

I.

The Government has filed the instant motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a), which provides in pertinent part:

Review of a release order.-If a person is ordered released by a magistrate judge... the attorney for the Government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the order.

This Court has original jurisdiction over the charged offenses set forth in the criminal complaint in this case. Thus, in conducting its review of the motion for revocation, this Court applies a de novo standard of review. See United States v. Delker, 757 F.2d 1390, 1394 (3d Cir. 1985); United States v. Chagra, 850 F.Supp. 354, 356 (W.D. Pa. 1994).

II.

On February 6, 2014, a criminal complaint was filed against Defendant Vladislav Miftakhov, charging him with unlawful possession or making of an unregistered destructive device, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) and (f). That same day, the Government moved for Miftakhov's detention pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(E) and 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(A). (ECF No. 2). An arrest warrant was issued and, on February 6, 2014, Miftakhov had his initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto. Judge Pesto appointed counsel to represent Miftakhov and then entered a temporary order of detention (ECF No. 8). On February 10, 2014, Judge Pesto held a preliminary examination and a detention hearing. At that time, Judge Pesto denied the Government's request to detain Miftakhov pending trial (ECF No. 10), but stayed his decision pending a disposition of the instant appeal before this Court. This Court held a second detention hearing on February 27, 2014.

III.

According to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), a person shall be detained pending trial if, after a hearing, the judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the person's appearance as required and the safety of any other individual and the community. The factors to be considered in determining whether to detain a defendant pending trial are set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) and include:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime involving an explosive or destructive device;
(2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant;
(3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including (a) his character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, and criminal history; and (b) whether at the time of the current offense, the defendant was on probation or completion of a sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or local law; and
(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the ...

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.