Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings United States v. Evan and Joshua Edwards — U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla. Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration — United States v. Evan Edwards (a…

Court filing

Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration — United States v. Evan Edwards (a/k/a Ian Heringa) and Joshua Edwards

Summary

Order denying Defendant Evan Edwards's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 140), Doc. 152 in United States v. Evan Edwards, No. 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, filed April 17, 2024. The Court considers the motion and the Government's Response in Opposition (Doc. 149), which seek reconsideration of the March 18, 2024 Order (Doc. 136) adopting the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 117) of Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price. The Court states that the Forensic Report (Doc. 98) contains only a passing note that restoration is unlikely. It orders the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 140) DENIED.

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

Cite this document

“Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration — United States v. Evan Edwards (a/k/a Ian Heringa) and Joshua Edwards.” Original at ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov, No. 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP, Doc. 152. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/us-v-evan-edwards/2024-04-17-order-denying-reconsideration-dkt-152/, SHA-256 1b96469d0f94c463b7b6dc94a9be39af48a2d388a5a758f8509d5fd454b18e47.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP        Document 152       Filed 04/17/24    Page 1 of 2 PageID 702




                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                                  ORLANDO DIVISION


  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

  v.                                               CASE NO: 6:22-cr-201-WWB-LHP

  EVAN EDWARDS
                                           /

                                           ORDER

         THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Evan Edwards’s Motion for

  Reconsideration (Doc. 140) and the Government’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 149).

  Therein, Defendant seeks reconsideration of this Court’s March 18, 2024 Order (Doc.

  136), adopting the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 117) of Magistrate Judge Leslie

  Hoffman Price and committing Defendant to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant

  to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1). Specifically, Defendant argues that the Court failed to consider

  the reference to subsection d in the Forensic Report (Doc. 98), indicating that an

  examination under § 4241(d) has already occurred.

         In the March 18, 2024 Order, the Court stated that “[t]here is no reference to

  subsection d” in the Forensic Report. (Doc. 136 at 5). As Defendant correctly points out,

  this statement—read in isolation—is not accurate because the Report does in fact make

  a reference to subsection d. (Doc. 98 at 8). However, taken in context, the statement in

  the March 18, 2024 Order was intended to convey that the report failed to contain

  references to the procedures or requirements set forth in subsection d or to state that the

  dictates of subsection d had been complied with during Defendant’s initial commitment,

  including a final determination under subsection d. Instead, the reference to subsection

  d contained in the report is limited to a passing note that restoration is unlikely, but the
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP         Document 152        Filed 04/17/24    Page 2 of 2 PageID 703




  report does not unequivocally state that restoration is impossible, that the evaluation

  fulfilled any or all of the requirements set forth in subsection d, or that further proceedings

  under subsection d are not legally required. In all other respects, Defendant’s Motion

  seeks to relitigate his argument that further commitment is unnecessary or unwarranted

  and such arguments are rejected for the reasons set forth in the prior Order.

         The Court is not convinced that it erred in any statement of fact or conclusion of

  law set forth in the March 18, 2024 Order. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s

  Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 140) is DENIED.

         DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 17, 2024.




  Copies furnished to:

  Counsel of Record




                                                2

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.flmd.408844.152.0.pdf
Size
125,072 bytes
SHA-256
1b96469d0f94c463b7b6dc94a9be39af48a2d388a5a758f8509d5fd454b18e47
Our copy
gov.uscourts.flmd.408844.152.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top