United States v. Khusanov

18-217-cr United States v. Khusanov UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 20th day of April, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, REENA RAGGI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 18-217-cr DILSHOD KHUSANOV, Defendant-Appellant, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: NICHOLAS KAIZER (Richard W. Levitt, on the brief), Levitt & Kaizer, New York, New York. APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: DAVID K. KESSLER, Assistant United States Attorney (Jo Ann Navickas, Alexander A. Solomon, Douglas M. Pravda, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York. Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (William F. Kuntz, Judge) denying bail and ordering pretrial detention. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order entered on January 10, 2018, is AFFIRMED. Defendant Dilshod Khusanov, who is awaiting trial on charges of conspiring and attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, appeals from an order denying him pretrial release on bail. See 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1). We review a denial of pretrial bail for clear error. See United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011). In applying that standard here, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. 1. The Legal Standard The Bail Reform Act permits a district court to order pretrial detention only if it finds “that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). Four factors properly inform this determination: “(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged”; “(2) the weight of the evidence against the person”; “(3) the history and characteristics of the person”; and “(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release.” Id. § 3142(g). Where, as here, a defendant has been indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1), a rebuttable presumption arises that no conditions can provide the requisite ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals