Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03383/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03383-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fazal Mehmood
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3383

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa. 

Fazal Mehmood, also known as *

Fazal Mehmood Awan, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 30, 2009

Filed: January 4, 2010

___________

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Fazal Mehmood appeals his pretrial detention. Mehmood is under indictment

for multiple violations including conspiracy to commit visa fraud, misuse of a social

security card, creating false immigration records, wire fraud, and visa fraud. We

affirm the district court’s1

 order of detention.

1

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

District of Iowa. 

Appellate Case: 09-3383 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2010 Entry ID: 3620358
After Mehmood’s arrest on February 11, 2009, the government moved for an

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

magistrate judge2

 ordered Mehmood detained on February 13. Mehmood 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

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

Mehmood 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 Mehmood’s attendance at trial. 

Undeterred, on March 26, Mehmood moved the district court to revoke the detention

order entered by the magistrate judge. According to the district court docket sheet,

this motion was referred to the magistrate judge. After an amendment to the motion,

Mehmood filed a request that the district court reconsider the detention order, noting

that no ruling had been made on the March 26 motion. The August 31 motion was

also referred to the magistrate judge, but he declined to rule on it because of the

pending appeal of his February 13 detention order to the district court. After an

October 8 status conference held before the district judge, at which Mehmood

requested that the district court rule on his appeal of the magistrate judge’s February

13 detention order, 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,

2

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

Southern District of Iowa. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-3383 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2010 Entry ID: 3620358
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 Mehmood to be a flight risk

based on the following facts. Mehmood, a Pakistani native, has resided in the United

States for 18 years and is a permanent resident. Mehmood has applied for two

separate social security cards in two different names. He holds property in Canada,

has a Canadian social security card, and maintains unreported bank accounts in

Canada. Since arriving in the United States, Mehmood has been a frequent

international traveler, 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 Mehmood’s attendance at trial. Of notable concern was the aliases Mehmood

used to obtain two different social security cards and Mehmood’s property and

financial interests in Canada. Having independently reviewed the record, we agree

with the district court’s determination that pretrial detention is appropriate to

reasonably assure that Mehmood will not flee the country to avoid prosecution. 

Mehmood 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.

-3-

Appellate Case: 09-3383 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/04/2010 Entry ID: 3620358
§ 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

applicable here, and therefore, despite the significant delay in the district court’s

review of the magistrate judge’s detention order, we reject Mehmood’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: 09-3383 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/04/2010 Entry ID: 3620358