UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-20272

FRANCIS A. SHARRAK,

Defendant.

 /

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DETENTION ORDER

On August 30, 2010, Defendant filed a “Motion for Reconsideration of Detention

Order” arguing that he poses no risk of flight or danger to others. Defendant contends

that his compliance while under bond and his strong connection with his family obviate

any risk of flight. In support, he references the Pretrial Services Agency’s

recommendation that this court consider home confinement. Defendant also points to

his mental condition in seeking reconsideration. On September 3, 2010, the

Government’s responded, arguing that Defendant’s potential access to funds and

admitted international connections create an unjustifiable risk of flight prior to

sentencing.

Under the Bail Reform Act, a person awaiting sentencing is to be detained unless

the court finds “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 if released.” 18

U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1). The court is persuaded that Defendant poses no danger to the
safety of anyone other than, possibly, himself. The court is not persuaded by clear and

convincing evidence that Defendant is not likely to flee.

Defendant’s assertion that he has no access to substantial funds is insufficient to

assuage this court’s lingering concerns regarding the potentially large sums for which

Defendant has been unable to account. Defendant acknowledged that much of the

funds in question had been held in or passed through off-shore accounts, further

increasing the risk of flight. Defendant’s familial bonds to this district must also be

weighed against his family connections to a non-extradition jurisdiction. Were

Defendant to flee to Lebanon and access funds held in the Bahamas, he would be

entirely beyond the reach of this or any other U.S. court. In light of the preceding, this

court cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant would not pose a

flight risk if released on bond, subject to home confinement and electronic monitoring.

Finally, this court’s concerns over Defendant’s mental health will not persuade it

to grant Defendant’s motion. Defendant is currently in a facility capable of administering

the medication he requires. Although confinement pending sentencing is unlikely to

prove salutary to anyone’s mental health, the court recognizes that it may be particularly

detrimental to Defendant. Should his condition substantially worsen before sentencing,

this court may take steps to prevent further deterioration. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Detention

Order” [Dkt. # 54] is DENIED.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 15, 2010
3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, September 15, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\09-20272.SHARRAK.Deny.Reconsideration.nkt.wpd