Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Bradley FAGAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-31
Citations: 675 F. App'x 80
Docket Number: 16-3168-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Bradley FAGAN, Defendant-Appellant,
Judges: PRESENT: Ralph K. Winter, José A. Cabranes, Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 80–80

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Bradley FAGAN, Defendant-Appellant,
16-3168-cr
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 31, 2017
FOR APPELLEE: Jordan Estes, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Susan K. Marcus and Grainne E. O’Neill, Law Offices of Susan K. Marcus, New York, NY.
PRESENT: Ralph K. Winter, José A. Cabranes, Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant-appellant Bradley Fagan appeals from an order denying him bail pending trial on an eight-count indictment charging, among other things, five counts of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine or 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 812, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(l)((A), and one count of possessing firearms in furtherance of a narcotics offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C § 924(c). After hearing argument on Fagan's bail application, the District Court denied Fa-gan's request, holding that he had failed to rebut the presumption that detention is appropriate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(2). The District Court considered the relevant factors, including (1) the nature of the charges, (2) Fagan's possession in his home of a loaded semiautomatic submachine gun and a loaded.38 caliber revolver, and (3) the strength of the government's case, and concluded that Fagan represented a danger to the community. See United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001). Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that the District Court did not err in denying Fa-gan's application for bail.
CONCLUSION
We have considered all of the arguments raised by defendant-appellant on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the September 8, 2016 order of the District Court.