Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03384/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03384-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vineet Maheshwari
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3384

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa. 

Vineet Maheshwari, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 30, 2009

Filed: January 4, 2010 

___________

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Vineet Maheshwari seeks reversal of his pretrial detention. Maheshwari is

presently under indictment for creating false immigration records. We affirm the

district court’s1

 order of detention.

After Maheshwari’s arrest on February 11, 2009, the government moved for an

order of detention on the grounds that Maheshwari was a serious flight risk. The

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

Appellate Case: 09-3384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2010 Entry ID: 3620401
magistrate judge2

 ordered Maheshwari detained on February 13. Maheshwari then

filed a motion for a detention hearing. He stated that he had waived the prior

detention hearing because of his discovery of an immigration detainer. Treating this

motion for a detention hearing as a request for a bond review hearing, the magistrate

judge conducted the hearing on February 20, after which the magistrate judge declined

Maheshwari’s request to be released on bond with conditions. 

Maheshwari obtained new counsel and sought reconsideration of the February

13 detention order. Another bond review hearing was conducted on March 6 and

March 9. Again, the magistrate judge denied the request, holding that detention was

necessary to avoid flight and to reasonably assure Maheshwari’s attendance at trial. 

Maheshwari moved the district court for revocation of the detention order. After an

October 8 status conference held before the district judge, the district court denied

revocation of the order of detention. This appeal followed. 

We maintain jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) and

Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. We review this matter promptly,

without briefing. We apply a clearly erroneous standard of review to the factual

determinations made by the district court, however we independently review the

ultimate detention conclusion. United States v. Cantu, 935 F.2d 950, 951 (8th Cir.

1991) (per curiam). When claiming that a pretrial defendant poses a flight risk, the

government’s evidentiary burden is preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3142(f); United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 891 n.20 (8th Cir. 1985) (en banc). 

The district judge and magistrate judge found Maheshwari to be a flight risk

based on the following facts. Maheshwari is an Indian native present in the United

States on a visa. Shortly after he was indicted, Maheshwari’s family removed $50,000

2

The Honorable Thomas J. Shields, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-3384 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2010 Entry ID: 3620401
in cash from an account, and it is unclear where the cash is presently located. Also,

Maheshwari told a coworker that if something bad were to ever happen to him in the

United States that he could return to India or Pakistan and “live like a king.” Further,

Maheshwari has been a frequent international traveler since he arrived in the United

States, he has sent large sums of money outside of the United States, and his

immigration status is in jeopardy if he is convicted in this matter. 

Based on these facts, the district court determined that the government met its

burden of proving there was no condition or set of conditions that would reasonably

assure Maheshwari’s attendance at trial. Like the district court, we are also troubled

by the significant sums of money that were withdrawn, Maheshwari’s comments

about returning to India or Pakistan, and his frequent travel abroad. Having

independently reviewed the record, we agree with the district court’s determination

that pretrial detention is appropriate to reasonably assure that Maheshwari will not flee

the country to avoid prosecution. 

Maheshwari raises a concern that the district court’s decision on his motion for

revocation of the magistrate judge’s February 13 detention order was delayed for

several months and therefore did not meet the requirement that “[t]he motion shall be

determined promptly.” 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). While the delay is significant, it is clear

from the record that this was merely an oversight by the district court and not

intentional. In addressing the time requirement of a hearing under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3142(f), the Supreme Court held that “the Act is silent on the issue of a remedy for

violations of its time limits. Neither the timing requirements nor any other part of the

Act can be read to require, or even suggest, that a timing error must result in release

of a person who should otherwise be detained.” United States v. Montalvo-Murillo,

495 U.S. 711, 716-17 (1990). The Supreme Court reasoned that adopting a rule that

would result in an “[a]utomatic release contravenes the object of the statute, to provide

fair bail procedures while protecting the safety of the public and assuring the

appearance at trial of defendants found likely to flee.” Id. at 720. This reasoning is

-3-

Appellate Case: 09-3384 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/04/2010 Entry ID: 3620401
applicable here, and therefore, despite the significant delay in the district court’s

review of the magistrate judge’s detention order, we reject Maheshwari’s request that

he be released as a result of that delay. 

Accordingly, we affirm the order of detention. We further deny all pending

motions related to this case. 

______________________________

-4-

Appellate Case: 09-3384 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/04/2010 Entry ID: 3620401