Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings United States v. Maurice Fayne, a/k/a Arkansas Mo, et al. — N.D. Ga. filings Order - United States v. Maurice Fayne related docket (Doc. 16, filed 2020-12-08)

Court filing

Order - United States v. Maurice Fayne related docket (Doc. 16, filed 2020-12-08)

Summary

Document 116, a two-page Report of Proceedings Under Rules 5(c)(3) and 5.1 and Order Entered Thereon in United States of America v. Mark T Sargent (2), Case No. 3:20-mj-01280-BT, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, dated December 04, 2020, with a December 08, 2020 filing stamp in Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL. The form states that the defendant is charged in the referenced district with the offense of Conspiracy to commit wire fraud. It provides options for a Rule 5(c)(3) transfer, a Rule 5.1 preliminary hearing and a Rule 5(d)(3) detention hearing, and an order section directed to the United States Marshal. The order portion is dated December 04, 2020 and refers to a United States Magistrate.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Filed2020-12-08

Cite this document

“Order - United States v. Maurice Fayne related docket.” U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, No. 3:20-mj-01280-BT, Doc. 16, filed 2020-12-08. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-fayne-gand-278523/2020-12-08-order-doc-116/, SHA-256 1c9d440f521147308de760c79a947b8746496683debcc46caee021b224b4a0b6.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL Document116- File 1S MER OF TEKAS
Case 3:20-mj-01280- BT Document 16_ Filed 12/04/20 | Pa

NITED STATES DISTRICT CQUR

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEKAS
DALLAS DIVISION DEC - A 2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § Case No. 3:20-mj-01280-B4-——-——__——"
§ Other Dist. Dock ERGUA RIRTRICH
JKL
V. § Charge Pending peeey
§
MARK T SARGENT (2) § Dallas Division

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER RULES 5(c)(3) and 5.1
AND ORDER ENTERED THEREON

The defendant is charged in the above-referenced district with the offense of Conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
Having been arrested in this district on a warrant issued on that/those charge(s), he/she appeared before me for proceedings as
follows:

Northern District of Texas
Rule 5(c)(3) Transfer
x The government has produced a copy of the warrant, and

x The Court finds that the person before the Court is the defendant named in the indictment, information or
warrant because:

¥ The defendant waived identity hearing.
oO An identity hearing was conducted, and the defendant’s identity was established.

Qo The Court finds, based on the evidence presented during an identity hearing, that the person before the
Court is NOT the defendant named in the indictment, information or warrant.

Rule 5.1: Preliminary Hearing

X No preliminary hearing is necessary because the defendant is charged by indictment.

oO The defendant waived a preliminary hearing.
a The defendant elected to have a preliminary hearing in the district where the prosecution is pending.
| The defendant elected to have a preliminary hearing in this district, and based on the evidence presented

during the hearing, the Court finds that:

Q There is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense(s) charged.

a There is NOT probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense(s) charged.

Rule 5(d)(3) Detention Hearing

x No detention hearing is necessary because the government did not move to detain the defendant.
C 1:20-cr-Q0228- -JKL , Document116 Filed 12/08/20 Page 2of2
2 caghhs deenda wahuenst depsakton ASRS Filed 12/04/20 Page 2 of2 PagelD 28

QO The defendant elected to have a detention hearing in the district where the prosecution is pending.

o The defendant elected to have a detention hearing in this district, and based on the evidence presented
during the hearing, the Court finds that:

a The defendant should be detained.

Qo The defendant should be released on bond.

ORDER ENTERED ON THE FOREGOING REPORT
TO: UNITED STATES MARSHAL

oO You are commanded to transfer the above-named defendant forthwith to the district in which he/she is

authorized to receive him/her.

a It is ORDERED that this defendant be released from custody on bond pending further proceedings.

O It is ORDERED that this defendant be discharged.

DATE: December 04, 2020.

Ry

(Use Other Side for Return) United States Magistrate udge

charged and there deliver him/her to the United States Marshal for that district or to some other officer
|
|
|
|

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.gand.278523.116.0.pdf
Size
100,479 bytes
SHA-256
1c9d440f521147308de760c79a947b8746496683debcc46caee021b224b4a0b6
Our copy
gov.uscourts.gand.278523.116.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top