Opinion
CR 19-00026 WHA
07-22-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DAVID JAH, Defendant.
ORDER RE MOTION FOR RELEASE FROM CUSTODY PENDING SENTENCING OR APPEAL
WILLIAM ALSUP, United States District Judge.
Buried deep within one of Mr. Jah's twelve post-trial filings lies a motion for release from custody pending sentencing or appeal. Mr. Jah moves pursuant to F.R.Cr.P. 46 and 18 U.S.C. § 3143(A)(i) (see “Motion for a New Trial, ” Dkt. No. 595 at 15).
Under Rule 46, “The burden of establishing that the defendant will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community rests with the defendant.” F.R.Cr.P. 46(c). Section “3143(A)(i)” does not exist, but Section 3143(2)(A)(i) addresses the grounds that Mr. Jah cites, namely that a district court may grant release if there exists “a substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted.”
Mr. Jah has not offered any argument or evidence to support his contention under Rule 46 that no he poses no danger or risk of flight. Furthermore, the Court cannot find that his post-trial motions for acquittal or a new trial show a substantial likelihood of success. The motion is Denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.