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

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)