Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Lovo

United States District Court, District of Columbia

June 20, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
PABLO LOVO, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ROSEMARY M. COLLYER United States District Judge

         Pablo Lovo was convicted by a jury on May 28, 2014, on two criminal counts: (1) Conspiracy to Interfere with Interstate Commerce by Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012), and (2) Using, Carrying, and Possessing a Firearm During a Crime of Violence and Aiding and Abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) and (2). On March 26, 2015, this Court sentenced him to a period of incarceration of 64 months on Count One and a period of 60 months' incarceration on Count Two, consecutive to Count One, as mandated. The Court also imposed a period of post-incarceration supervised release of 36 months on each Count to be served concurrently. Judgment was entered on April 8, 2015. Mr. Lovo filed a timely appeal on April 9, 2015. While that appeal was pending, on December 23, 2016, Mr. Lovo filed a Motion for Bail Pending Appeal [Dkt. 274], which the government opposed. Opp'n [Dkt. 277]. The defendant did not file any reply. After considering Mr. Lovo's arguments, the Court will deny his motion for bail pending appeal, for the reasons stated below.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Mr. Lovo cites 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b) as authority for his motion. See Mot. at 3. That statute governs release pending appeal by a person who “has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.” The statute directs that release pending appeal is appropriate if the Court finds:

(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 . . .; and
(B) that the appeal is not for purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in-
(i) reversal,
(ii) an order for a new trial, . . . or
(iii) 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.

18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1) (2012). Mr. Lovo asserts that he meets the standards in this statute and was not convicted of an offense that implicates mandatory detention; the United States opposes his motion on both grounds.

         In response, the government relies on 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(2), which mandates that a judicial officer order a defendant be detained pending appeal when that defendant “has been found guilty of an offense in a case described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (f)(1) of section 3142 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.” Section 3142(f)(1)(A)-(C), in turn, lists the following offenses:

(A) a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, or an offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed;
(B) an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death; [or]
(C) an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years of more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.