Court Opinion

ID: 9397683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 22:00:49.068454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:26.982931
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-3090                                                September Term, 2022
                                                                    1:21-cr-00083-TNM-1
                                                      Filed On: May 25, 2023
United States of America,

              Appellee

       v.

Brandon Fellows,

              Appellant

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       BEFORE:       Millett, Pillard, and Rao, Circuit Judges

                                    JUDGMENT

        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 July 15, 2021, oral ruling
revoking appellant’s pretrial release and ordering him detained and the district court’s
November 2, 2022, oral ruling denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration be
affirmed. Appellant has not challenged the factual basis for the district court’s findings
that clear and convincing evidence showed that he had violated conditions of his pretrial
release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(B). Appellant has also not challenged appellee’s
assertion that the district court’s determination that appellant was unlikely to abide by
any condition or combination of conditions of release, 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2)(B), should
be reviewed for clear error. Cf. United States v. Manafort, 897 F.3d 340, 345-46 (D.C.
Cir. 2018) (noting that standard of review is open question but employing clear error
standard based on parties’ agreement). The district court did not err in making that
determination, and thus in revoking appellant’s pretrial release.

       The district court also did not abuse its discretion by concluding that a mental
health evaluation, absent any plan to treat the issues identified therein, did not warrant
reconsideration of its decision. Moreover, appellant has not argued that the length of
his detention constitutes a violation of due process, see generally United States v.
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-3090                                                September Term, 2022

Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 747 n.4 (1987), or the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et
seq., cf. United States v. Colombo, 777 F.2d 96, 100-101 (2d Cir. 1985).

        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