Order on Motion to Reopen Detention Hearing — United States v. Nathan Reardon (D. Me., Dkt. 129)

Summary

Order on Motion to Reopen Detention Hearing, filed June 30, 2022 as Document 129, Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW, United States v. Nathan Reardon, District of Maine. It states that Defendant was initially released pending trial but his bail was revoked on April 21, 2022, after he violated release conditions by applying for pandemic-related financial assistance without first seeking approval. It states that the information about Defendant's health conditions was known to him at the revocation hearing and is not material to whether release conditions would assure his appearances and the safety of others. It also states that the suggestion of a new plan for release with no internet access is not new information and lacks specificity. The Motion to Reopen Detention Hearing is DENIED, signed /s/ Lance E. Walker, United States District Judge.

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 on Motion to Reopen Detention Hearing — United States v. Nathan Reardon (D. Me., Dkt. 129).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-d-me-no-1-21-cr-00061-dkt-129-8f3afcba64/, SHA-256 eb64e76f6b27af820b0464362d87683299b954228ead7bc94d8ebf67832cced7.

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 129 Filed 06/30/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 943

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. )
)
NATHAN REARDON, ) No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEW
)
Defendant. )

ORDER ON MOTION TO REOPEN DETENTION HEARING

Defendant, Nathan Reardon, stands before the court charged with multiple offenses

stemming from his allegedly fraudulent applications for pandemic-related financial

assistance. Defendant was initially released pending trial, but his bail was revoked on April

21, 2022, after he violated the conditions of his release by applying for pandemic-related

financial assistance without first seeking approval to do so. At that time, the Magistrate

Judge determined that there was no condition or combination of conditions that would

assure Defendant’s compliance with the conditions of his release, which order I affirmed.

Defendant now asks me to reconsider that order, by way of a request to reopen his detention

hearing. 1 See Def.’s Mot. (ECF No. 102).

A hearing to set the conditions of release “may be reopened . . . at any time before

trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant

1
Defendant has also appealed to the First Circuit my order affirming the magistrate judge’s revocation of
his pretrial release. See ECF No. 101. Defendant’s appeal generally would divest this court of jurisdiction
over “any matter touching upon, or involved in, the appeal,” United States v. Mala, 7 F.3d 1058, 1061 (1st
Cir. 1993), including the core issue of whether Defendant should be detained pending trial. Still, I retain
the authority to deny Defendant’s motion notwithstanding his pending appeal. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(2).
1
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 129 Filed 06/30/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 944

at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are

conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required

and the safety of any other person and the community.” 2 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). In order to

warrant a reopened hearing, then, the proffered information must satisfy two conditions: it

must be new, and it must be material.

Defendant’s motion does not meet either requirement. First, the information about

Defendant’s health conditions may be new to the Court, but it is not new to Defendant,

who was aware of these diagnoses at the time of his revocation hearing on April 21. See

Medical Problem List (ECF No. 102-1). Second, the health conditions of which Defendant

complains are not material to the question of whether any conditions of release would be

sufficient to assure his future appearances and the safety of others. Indeed, courts around

the country have repeatedly rejected motions to reopen detention hearings based on

defendants’ health issues, including since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. See, e.g.,

United States v. Rowe-Hodges, 454 F. Supp. 3d 618, 620 (E.D. Tex. 2020); United States

v. Smith, 337 F.R.D. 366, 369 (N.D. Fla. 2020); United States v. Ramadan, 458 F. Supp.

3d 657, 662 (E.D. Mich. 2020), aff'd, No. 20-1450, 2020 WL 5758015 (6th Cir. Sept. 22,

2020).

To the extent that Defendant’s motion rests on his vague intimation of a “new plan

for release that includes no internet access,” Def.’s Reply 2 (ECF No. 112), it is no more

availing. The possibility of Defendant refraining from internet use is a matter not of

2
I assume without deciding that this standard applies to a request to reopen a hearing to revoke a defendant’s
release, while noting that § 3142 only refers to requests to reopen hearings setting the conditions of a
defendant’s release or detention.
2
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 129 Filed 06/30/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 945

Defendant’s knowledge, but of his will, and so cannot be considered new information; that

Defendant has had a change of heart after suffering the consequence of his bail violation

does not entitle him to a new hearing on the matter. What’s more, Defendant’s suggestion

lacks the specificity to bear materially on this Court’s consideration of the conditions of

release.

Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Detention Hearing is therefore DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated this 30th day of June, 2022.

/s/ Lance E. Walker
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

File and source

File: 129.pdf
Size: 122,559 bytes
SHA-256: eb64e76f6b27af820b0464362d87683299b954228ead7bc94d8ebf67832cced7
Our copy: 129.pdf
Original: No public link identified.