The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon Avern Cohn
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This is a criminal case. On February 26, 2010, the Court granted bond to defendant pending trial (Doc. 26). The government has moved for reconsideration of the order granting bond (Doc. 30). For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3) regarding motions for reconsideration states:
Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues rule upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been mislead but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.
Thus in order to prevail on a motion for reconsideration, a movant must (1) raise a new issue (2) that represents a palpable defect in the initial decision and (3) will result in a different disposition in the case.
In order to detain a defendant pending trial, a court must find that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of... the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The government asserts that defendant's circumstances have not changed and that he is both a risk of flight and presents a danger to the community if released on bond pending trial.
Defendant was indicted on May 28, 2009, for violation of 21 USC §846, Conspiracy To Possess With Intent To Distribute And To Distribute Controlled Substances.
Previously defendant was arrested on a complaint (Doc. 1), filed May 13, 2009, charging the offense for which defendant was indicted. An order of temporary detention was entered (Doc. 2). Following a detention hearing on May 14, 2009, defendant was ordered detained by a magistrate judge (Doc. 3). An appeal of the order was taken to the presiding judge. Following a hearing, the presiding judge ordered continued detention on the grounds that defendant did not rebut the presumption that he was a danger to the community. No formal order was entered by the presiding judge. The proceedings before the magistrate judge are reflected on a CD; there is a transcript of the proceedings before the presiding judge.
The Court held a status conference hearing on November 12, 2009, at which the defendant appeared in custody, along with his two (2) co-defendants, one of which was not in custody. ...