U.S. v. Nosker

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RALPH NOSKER, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Date published: Jan 8, 2002

No. CR 01-281 BB (D.N.M. Jan. 8, 2002)

Opinion

No. CR 01-281 BB

January 8, 2002

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION

BRUCE D. BLACK, United States District Judge.

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Defendant's motion to reconsider [# 55] detention, and the Court having considered the briefs of counsel, the motion must be Denied.

Discussion

Reconsideration of a prior order is appropriate only to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence. Phelps v. Hamilton,

122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997). None of the matters Defendant raises as errors of law or newly discovered evidence can withstand scrutiny.

Indeed, all of the newly discovered evidence supports the Government and thus the Court's earlier decision.

Machine Gun

The firearm at issue was examined by Richard D. Craze, Firearms Enforcement Officer, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. A copy of his report is attached to the Government's Response. Mr. Craze states that the weapon has been altered subsequent to manufacture to make it a machine gun.

This clearly contradicts Defendant's representation that the weapon has not been altered.

The Anarchist's Cookbook Defendant maintains there is no historical or rational link between the Anarchist's Cookbook and criminal activity. The Government cites at least ten cases where this tome is mentioned in connection with specific crimes involving weapons and drugs. It has also been discussed by legal commentators as including step-by step instructions on how to kill someone with a knife, how to grow marijuana and how to make the explosive nitroglycerin as well as a nail grenade and an effective directional anti-personnel mine. Loris L. Bakken, Comment,

Providing the Recipe for Destruction: Protected or Unprotected Speech?, 32 McGeorge L. Rev. 289, 293-4 (2000). See also Sandra Davidson,

Blood Money:

When Media Expose Others to Risk of Bodily Harm, 19 Hast. Comm. Ent. L. J. 225 n. 380 (1997). While the relevance of this evidence may be fairly debated as to Defendant's First Amendment rights or even his guilt, it has clear implications on whether he is a potential danger to society.

Crime of Violence

The Court need not resolve this issue. Given Defendant's criminal history as well as the above discussion, the Court concludes Defendant is a danger to society.

ORDER

For the above stated reasons, Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.