Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. McIntyre

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

January 10, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Brandon MCINTYRE, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          KEVIN MCNULTY United States District Judge

         On November 17, 2017, after a hearing, this Court delivered an oral opinion and entered an order (ECF nos. 69, 78) affirming the decision of Magistrate Judge Michael Hammer to continue the detention of the defendant, Brandon McIntyre, pending trial, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Now before the Court is the defendant's motion (ECF no. 70) for reconsideration of that ruling. The motion attaches, inter alia, some 56 pages of small-font, single-spaced emails, all authored by the defendant, citing legal authorities and facts he wishes brought to the attention of the Court, as well as other exhibits.[1]

         This opinion is supplemental to, and must be read in conjunction with, my earlier oral opinion and that of Magistrate Judge Hammer, which will not be summarized or repeated here. For the reasons expressed herein, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

         I. Reconsideration Standards for a Detention Order

         The Bail Reform Act contains what amounts to its own reconsideration provision:

The hearing may be reopened, before or after a determination by the judicial officer, at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.

18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B). This provision requires information that was "not known" at the time of the earlier ruling and is "material."

         Both sides, however, have alluded to the more flexible, general standards for reconsideration. I consider those standards, which are contained in the Local Civil Rules. See generally D.N.J. Loc. Civ. R. 7. 1(i). Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, " to be granted "sparingly." NL Indus. Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F.Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996). Generally, reconsideration is granted in three scenarios: (1) when there has been an intervening change in the law; (2) when new evidence has become available; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. See North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995); Carmichael v. Everson, 2004 WL 1587894, at *1 (D.N.J. May 21, 2004). Local Rule 7.1(i} requires such a motion to specifically identify "the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked." Id.; see also Egloff v. New Jersey Air Nat'l Guard, 684 F.Supp. 1275, 1279 (D.N.J. 1988).

         II. Prior rulings and procedural history

         The reasons for Magistrate Judge Hammer's ruling, and my decision upholding it, were stated orally, on the record. (See Transcripts, ECF no. 56-1; ECF no. 78.) Those decisions are incorporated by reference here. I will briefly review the procedural history and prior rulings as to which the defendant seeks reconsideration.

         On September 12, 2014, the defendant had an initial appearance before the Hon. Steven C. Mannion, U.S. Magistrate Judge. He waived his right to a detention hearing and consented to pre-trial detention. (ECF no.5) Assistant Federal Public Defender Lisa Mack was assigned to represent him. On January 12, 2016, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment charging the defendant with stalking and production of child pornography. (ECF no. 16).

         At his arraignment on January 19, 2017, the defendant apparently still had no bail package to propose because he had no place to reside if released. After a bond hearing, he was again ordered detained on consent. (ECF no. 19)

         On March 29, 2016, the defendant appeared before the Honorable Michael A. Hammer, U.S. Magistrate Judge, for a bail hearing and to request new counsel. Still having no place to reside if released, he presented no bail package for the court to consider, and Judge Hammer denied his motion to be released on bail. (See Tr. March 29, 2016 pp. 3, 7, 8.) In response to defendant's request, the Federal Public Defender was replaced as defendant's counsel with Adalgiza Alexandra Nunez, who was appointed pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act. (ECF nos. 21, 26)

         On April 4, 2017, a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Mclnryre him with two counts of production of child pornography; one count of online enticement; two counts of interstate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.