Court Opinion

ID: 9473735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:38:23.189902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:42.587241
License: Public Domain

McKAY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part in the matter of the motion for bail pending appeal:
Although the government thinks otherwise, I agree with the panel that the trial court did not deny bail in this case on the ground of the risk of flight. Indeed, if the court had done so, it would have been reversible error. The appellant was at large for two months after being found guilty but before sentencing. The appellant was allowed 30 more days at large following sentencing. The appellant was allowed to surrender himself to the place of confinement. The place of confinement is the most minimal security institution available. Under these circumstances, it would be a clear abuse of discretion to deny bail pending appeal on the ground that the defendant is a risk of flight.
On the issue of substantiality of the questions raised on appeal, I believe the issues raised meet the court’s test set forth in United States v. Affleck, 765 F.2d 944 (10th Cir.1985). Even if they did not meet the test, I would still grant bail for the reasons set forth in my dissent in those two cases.
Absent the granting of such a proposal, I do not dissent from remanding this case to the trial court for further consideration in light of the court’s opinion in United States v. Affleck, 765 F.2d 944 (10th Cir. May 24, 1985).