Opinion
7:23-CR-65 WLS-TQL-06
01-24-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. LARKEM IQUAN HAYES, Defendant.
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Review and Reverse Order of Pretrial Detention (Doc. 321) (“Motion”). Therein, Defendant Larkem Iquan Hayes, requests this Court review and reverse United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff s Order of Detention Pending Trial (Doc. 234)(“Detention Order”).
Defendant refers to Order of Detention (Doc. 232). Document 232 is the “TEXT ONLY Minute Entry” of the proceedings. The actual Order is Document 234.
A district court asked to review a Magistrate Judge's detention order “must conduct an independent review to determine whether the magistrate properly found that pretrial detention is necessary.” United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 490 (11th Cir. 1988); see 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). The Court is required to make the determination “promptly.” 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). If the Court agrees with the findings and decision of the United States Magistrate Judge, the Court need not submit its own written findings of fact and statement of reasons supporting pretrial detention. King, 849 F.2d at 490 (“The court may . . . explicitly adopt the magistrate's pretrial detention order. Adoption of the order obviates the need for the district court to prepare its own written findings of fact and statement of reasons supporting pretrial detention.”).
A transcript of the proceedings before Judge Langstaff is necessary for the Court to properly review the record.
Accordingly, the Defendant is ORDERED to promptly produce the record, including filing a transcript of all hearings before Judge Langstaff pertaining to Judge Langstaff s entry of the Detention Order.
Further, it is hereby ORDERED that the Government shall file its response to the Motion on or before Wednesday, February 7, 2024.
SO ORDERED