Memorandum Order — United States v. Mathurin (Dkt. 93, D.N.J.)

Summary

A memorandum order of District Judge Shipp in United States v. Nikenson Jean Mathurin, Criminal No. 24-432 (MAS), in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed September 3, 2026 as Document 93. It denies the defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (ECF No. 88), which asked that home detention and location monitoring be removed or replaced with a curfew, and which the government opposed (ECF No. 91). The defendant cited his compliance, family obligations, two federal contracts his business must perform, his pro se preparation for sentencing and religious observance. Deciding without oral argument, the court finds that he has not met his burden and denies the motion.

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

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 3:24-cr-00432-MAS Document93_ Filed 09/03/26 Page 1 of 2 PagelD: 1752

                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                         Criminal No. 24-432 (MAS)
                   Vv.
                                                        MEMORANDUM ORDER
NIKENSON JEAN MATHURIN,

SHIPP, District Judge

       This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Nikenson Jean Mathurin’s

(“Defendant”) Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (the “Motion”) requesting that: (1) the

conditions of home detention and location monitoring be removed; or (2) the conditions of home

detention be replaced with a curfew with electronic monitoring. (Mot. *1, ECF No. 88.)! The

United States of America (the “Government”) opposed (Gov’t’s Opp’n Br., ECF No. 91). The

Court has carefully considered the parties’ submissions and decides the matter without oral

argument under Local Civil Rule 78.1, which is applicable to criminal cases under Local Civil

Rule 1.1.

       In support of his motion, Defendant argues that: (1) he has complied with the conditions of

his release; (2) he cares for two minor children and assists two elderly parents—one of which has

undergone two surgeries in recent months and requires ongoing care; (3) his business was awarded

two federal contracts requiring active performance in Florida and Louisiana; (4) he is proceeding

pro se in preparation for sentencing and home detention materially impedes such preparation; and

' Page numbers preceded by an asterisk reflect the number atop the ECF header.

Case 3:24-cr-00432-MAS Document93 _ Filed 09/03/26 Page 2 of 2 PagelD: 1753

(5) he seeks the ability to resume religious work and observance in his community. (See generally
Mot.)

An individual “who has been found guilty of an offense and who is awaiting imposition or
execution of sentence . . . [shall] be detained, unless the judicial officer finds 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 if released.” 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1); see also United States y. Roeder,
807 F. App’x 157, 160 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam).

Here, Defendant fails to present any evidence to show by clear and convincing evidence
that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if
released. (See generally Mot.) Defendant, moreover, presents no facts justifying modification of
the conditions of release this Court imposed after trial in May 2026. Defendant’s current
conditions, moreover, explicitly authorize him to leave his residence for employment, religious
services, court appearances, court-ordered obligations, and other activities preapproved by Pretrial
Services. (Trial Tr. 492:6-11.) The Court therefore finds that Defendant has not met his burden,
and accordingly,

IT IS on this 2nd day of September 2026, ORDERED that:

l. Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 88) is DENIED.

United States District Judge

File and source

File

93.pdf

Size

77,683 bytes

SHA-256

a42bff9cc0b880e0435d65557dd04cd4c19d49b312b991c62c62dd3b42e5965b

Our copy

93.pdf