Opinion
8:24MJ236 5:21CR401
05-31-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. BRANDON EDWARD NICHOLS Defendant.
RULE 32.1 ORDER
GOSSETT, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
A Petition and Warrant (charging document) having been filed in the district court for the Northern District of California San Jose Venue charging the above-named defendant with alleged violation of supervised release, and the defendant having been arrested in the District of Nebraska, proceedings to commit defendant to another district were held in accordance with Fed.R.Cr.P. Rule 32.1. The defendant had an initial appearance here in accordance with Fed.R.Cr.P.32.1.
Additionally, [X] The defendant waived an identity hearing and admitted that he was the person named in the aforementioned charging document.
[X] The government did move for detention.
[X] The defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived a preliminary examination and detention hearing in this district and reserved his right to a preliminary examination and detention hearing in the charging district.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the defendant is held to answer in the prosecuting district.
[X] Defendant has been unable to obtain release under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et.seq. and the U.S. Marshal is commanded to take custody of the above named defendant and to transport the defendant with a certified copy of this order forthwith to the prosecuting district specified above and there deliver the defendant to the U.S. Marshal for that district or to some other officer authorized to receive the defendant, all proceedings required by Fed.R.Cr.P.40 having been completed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.