Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-24-03082/USCOURTS-caDC-24-03082-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Michael Baker
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 24-3082 September Term, 2024

1:24-cr-00121-CRC-1

Filed On: September 9, 2024

United States of America,

Appellee

v.

Stephen Michael Baker, also known as

Stephen Baker,

Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Millett, Pillard, and Pan, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the memoranda of law and fact filed by the parties. 

The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion.

See D.C. Cir. Rule 36. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s June 3, 2024, order

denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration be affirmed. The district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying that motion. See United States v. Trabelsi, 28 F.4th

1291, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 2022). Because appellant failed to timely argue that the district

court could not impose pretrial release conditions without holding a detention hearing,

we review that argument for plain error. See United States v. Hunt, 843 F.3d 1022,

1029 (D.C. Cir. 2016). In that regard, the district court did not plainly err because

appellant has identified no “controlling precedent on the issue or some other ‘absolutely

clear’ legal norm.” United States v. Pyles, 862 F.3d 82, 88 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting

United States v. Nwoye, 663 F.3d 460, 466 (D.C. Cir. 2011)); see also, e.g., Olmos v.

Holder, 780 F.3d 1313, 1325 (10th Cir. 2015) (noting that prosecutors may seek

release conditions “without a detention hearing”); United States v. Fidler, 419 F.3d

1026, 1028 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (explaining that 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c), “which

governs the procedures for issuing a release order, does not direct that a full hearing

USCA Case #24-3082 Document #2073779 Filed: 09/09/2024 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 24-3082 September Term, 2024

following the guidelines set out in § 3142(f) be held either before or after the release

order is issued”). Nor did the district court clearly err in maintaining the conditions that

appellant not possess a firearm and that he notify the Pretrial Services Agency before

traveling to Washington, D.C. See United States v. Hale-Cusanelli, 3 F.4th 449,

454–55 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the

resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See

Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2

USCA Case #24-3082 Document #2073779 Filed: 09/09/2024 Page 2 of 2