UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:15-mc-50750 

v. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

MICHAEL ABRAMS, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________/ 

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO SENTENCING 

No. 8 [DE 11] 

On July 22, 2015, Defendant filed a series of “Objections to Sentencing,” the 

eighth of which reads as follows: “If this Court elects to deny Defendant’s 

objections to a sentence higher than a fine of $275, Defendant would respectfully 

requests [sic] this Court to stay the judgment of conviction and sentence pending 

appeal.” [DE 11.] At the sentencing hearing, held on August 24, 2015, the Court 

overruled each of Defendant’s eight objections for the reasons stated on the record. 

With respect to Objection No. 8, the Court noted that the objection was not yet ripe 

when filed, because the Court had yet to issue its sentence. 

Requests for stay pending appeal are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b), 

which provides that “a person who has been found guilty of an offense and 

2:15-mc-50750-AJT-APP Doc # 27 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 334
2 

sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal . . . be detained, 

unless the judicial officer” makes the following findings: 

(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to 

flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the 

community . . . and 

(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a 

substantial question of law or fact likely to result in— 

 (i) reversal 

 (ii) an order for a new trial 

 (iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or 

 (iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the 

 total of the time already served . . . . 

The Court notes that on July 29, 2015, five days after failing to appear for 

his sentencing and while in absconder status with a warrant out for his arrest, 

Defendant filed a “Notice of Appeal” [DE 17], from “the decisions, orders, 

judgments, and/or sentences of the Honorable Anthony P. Patti, United States 

Magistrate Judge, entered/imposed on: July 22, 2015, July 23, 2015, July 24, 2015, 

and thereafter.” This interlocutory appeal, which was assigned to Judge Tarnow, 

would appear to challenge the following specific orders and rulings of the Court on 

the date that the appeal was filed: (1) The Court’s July 22, 2015 “Notice” that 

Defendant was still required to appear at his July 23, 2015 sentencing, 

notwithstanding his written objections, and that his failure to appear would result 

in an arrest warrant being issued [DE 12]; (2) Minute Entry of July 23, 2015, 

indicating that Defendant failed to appear for sentencing and that an arrest warrant 

2:15-mc-50750-AJT-APP Doc # 27 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 335
3 

was to be issued: (3) July 23, 2015 Order Setting Supplemental Sentencing 

Briefing Schedule [DE 14]; and (4) July 24, 2015 Order Denying Motion to 

Withdraw as Attorney [DE 15]. As of today’s date, this Court is unaware of any 

other appeal pending or order being challenged. There is no indication that 

Defendant’s appeal of these four orders/entries is not for the purpose of delay and 

no indication that the appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to 

result in reversal, an order for a new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of 

imprisonment or a reduction in sentence. Moreover, Defendant’s failure to appear 

for sentencing, residence in Canada, and the fact that the Court had to issue and 

obtain execution of an arrest warrant in order to secure Defendant’s appearance for 

sentencing are indicative of the fact that Defendant is likely to “flee or pose a 

danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released” pending 

appeal; thus, the Court obviously cannot find to the contrary “by clear and 

convincing evidence,” as required for release pending appeal under the governing 

statute. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)(A). 

At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, despite being advised of his 

right to appeal the conviction, his right to appeal the sentence, and the right to ask 

for permission to appeal in forma pauperis, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(j)(1), 

Defendant gave no indication in court that he intended to appeal the conviction or 

sentence, so as to trigger the provisions of Rule 32.1(j)(2). Thus, the only appeal of 

2:15-mc-50750-AJT-APP Doc # 27 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 336
4 

which the Court is aware at this time is the interlocutory appeal set forth at DE 17, 

challenging three procedural orders and possibly one minute entry. In any case, 

even if Defendant believes that his use of the language “and thereafter” in DE 17 

somehow constitutes an appeal of right from the Court’s subsequent final 

judgment, for the reasons stated above, the Court cannot and does not find “by 

clear and convincing evidence that [Defendant] is not likely to flee or pose a 

danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released” pending 

appeal, and has no basis for finding “that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay 

and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in” reversal, an order 

for a new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment or a 

reduced sentence. 

Accordingly, Objection No. 8 is OVERRULED.

Dated: August 28, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of this document was sent to parties of record on 

August 28, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-mc-50750-AJT-APP Doc # 27 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 337