Court Opinion

ID: 9382770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 18:00:56.747415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:41.568431
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 23-3020                                                 September Term, 2022
                                                                     1:23-cr-00025-BAH-1
                                                       Filed On: March 28, 2023
United States of America,

              Appellee

       v.

Michael Blackson,

              Appellant

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

       BEFORE:       Pillard, Childs, and Pan, 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 February 6, 2023 detention
order be affirmed. Appellant has not shown that the district court required more than a
“reasonable assurance” that the community would be safe if he were released under
the conditions ordered by the magistrate judge. See United States v. Munchel, 991
F.3d 1273, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2021). Nor has appellant demonstrated that the district
court clearly erred in finding that no condition or combination of conditions of release
would reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community. See
18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1); United States v. Hale-Cusanelli, 3 F.4th 449, 454-55 (D.C. Cir.
2021). Given this finding, the district court was not required to make further specific
findings on the record with respect to the likely effectiveness of the release conditions
that the magistrate judge had deemed sufficient. See United States v. Mink, No.
22-3007, 2022 WL 1193670, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 21, 2022) (per curiam); United States
v. Brown, No. 21-3063, 2021 WL 5537705, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 17, 2021) (per curiam);
United States v. Quaglin, 851 F. App’x 218, 219 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (per curiam). And in
any event, the district court did address the proposed conditions of release, and
appellant has not shown that the district court clearly erred in finding them insufficient to
reasonably assure the safety of the community. See Hale-Cusanelli, 3 F.4th at 455.
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-3020                                                September Term, 2022
        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 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