United States District Court, E.D. California
STATEMENT OF REASONS
MORRISON C. ENGLAND JR. UNITED STATES DISTRlC JUDGE
Deshawn Ray (“Defendant”) proceeded to trial on a
Second Superseding Indictment charging him with: (1) one
count of Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1344, 1349; (2) two counts of Bank Fraud
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344; (3) and one count of
Aggravated Identity Theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1028A(a)(1). ECF No. 73. On December 11, 2014, the jury found
Defendant guilty on all counts, and the Court remanded him
into the custody of the United States Marshal. ECF No. 151,
156. The Court denied Defendant's subsequent Motion for
New Trial, ECF Nos. 223, 255, and Defendant appealed.
Defendant thereafter filed a Motion for Bail Review and
Release Pending Appeal, ECF No. 311, which this Court denied
as well, ECF No. 317. This case is now back before this Court
on limited remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for
“explanation of the reasons for the denial of
appellant's motion for bail pending appeal.” ECF
No. 318 at 1. That explanation follows.
grant bail pending appeal under the Bail Reform Act, the
Court must find:
(A) 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 under section 3142(b) or
(c) of this title; and
(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and
raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result
(ii) an order for a new trial,
(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of
(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than
the total of the time already served plus the expected
duration of the appeal process.
If the judicial officer makes such findings, such judicial
officer shall order the release of the person in accordance
with section 3142(b) or (c) of this title, except that in the
circumstance described in subparagraph (B)(iv) of this
paragraph, the judicial officer shall order the detention
terminated at the expiration of the likely reduced sentence.
18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)(B).
Court was required to make a similar inquiry when the
Government moved for Defendant's immediate remand after
the jury rendered its verdict. After hearing from defense
counsel and from Defendant once more himself, the Court
My assessment of this case right now is that the evidence
that was presented by the Government over the last three days
was overwhelming as to what the guilt was of Mr. Ray. Between
the pictures, the demonstrative evidence, the exhibits that
were provided, it was overwhelming.
And, again, I listened to what was said yesterday, and it was
incredible, I think, to listen to it. And that's why
I'm not certain that I can believe what I'm hearing
at this point in time, Mr. Ray. Because I sat here and
watched you for an hour and a half, and I listened to
everything that was said. ...