SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  12
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS        Document 91         Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008              Page 1 of 12



                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                                    Case No. 08-20612-CR-SEITZ
                                  Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan


    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    vs.

    TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,

                      Defendant.
    ________________________________/

                      GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S
                       PETITION FOR REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE’S
                      REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING
                    DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR BOND AND GRANTING
                   GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR PRETRIAL DETENTION

           COMES NOW, the United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant

    United States Attorney, and files this Response to Defendant Bujduveanu’s Petition for Review of

    Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation Denying Defendant’s Motion for Bond and Granting

    Government’s Motion for Pretrial Detention Hearing (D.E. 79), filed September 9, 2008, and states

    as follows:

           Defendant’s Petition should be denied because Defendant Bujduveanu has failed to

    demonstrate any reason why the Pretrial Detention Hearing should be reopened nor that the

    Magistrate Judge’s findings were clearly erroneous.

           Defendant’s Petition appears to rely on two separate bases in support of his request to review

    the Magistrate Judge’s Order1: (1) Defendant seeks to reopen the Pretrial Detention Hearing,

           1

             In his Petition, Defendant refers to the Magistrate Judge’s “Report and Recommendation.” In
    fact, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order pursuant to his authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a) and SDFL
    Mag J Rule 1. See D.E. 16 (Detention Order as to Traian Bujduveanu).
Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS         Document 91          Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008              Page 2 of 12



    pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) (see Defendant’s Petition at ¶ 7); and, (2) Defendant seeks to appeal

    the Magistrate Judge’s Order to the District Court (see citation in introductory paragraph to 28

    U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)). Defendant is not entitled to relief under either basis as a matter of law.

    I. Defendant Demonstrates No Basis Upon Which to Reopen the Pretrial Detention Hearing.

            Defendant has not demonstrated that any information exists that was not known to the

    defendant at the time of the pretrial detention hearing which has a material bearing on the

    issue of whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of

    the defendant as required. Defendant is not, therefore, entitled to have the pretrial detention

    hearing reopened.

            As Defendant is aware, and the Bail Reform Act makes clear, the pretrial detention hearing

    may be reopened “if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the

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

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

    18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) (emphasis added). A review of Defendant’s Petition confirms that the only

    things that have changed since the pretrial detention hearing on June 26, 2008, are that a federal

    grand jury returned an indictment against the Defendant, Defendant retained new defense counsel,

    and Defendant received the discovery in the case. None of these issues has a bearing on the issue

    of whether Defendant is a risk of flight - at least not toward a finding that he is any less of a risk of

    flight than he was at the time of the original pretrial detention hearing. Rather, as set forth below,

    Defendant’s Petition only lays out information which was known to Defendant at the time of his

    pretrial detention hearing, the majority of which was actually discussed at the hearing.

                                  The June 26, 2008, Detention Hearing


                                                       2
Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS         Document 91          Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008              Page 3 of 12



            On June 26, 2008, this Court held a detention hearing. Defendant was present at that hearing

    and was represented by privately retained counsel. At the hearing, the Government moved for

    pretrial detention on the basis that the Defendant presents a risk of flight. Undersigned counsel for

    the Government proceeded, by way of proffer, to summarize the charges against the Defendant and

    the facts underlying those charges, as well as the facts underlying each of the factors the Court must

    consider in determining whether the defendant presents a risk of flight. It is settled in the Eleventh

    Circuit that the Government, as well as the defense, “may proceed by proffering evidence subject

    to the discretion of the judicial officer presiding at the detention hearing.” United States v. Gaviria,

    828 F.2d 667, 669 (11th Cir. 1987).

            Defense counsel then also proceeded to proffer evidence in support of the Defendant’s claim

    that he did not export or possess military aircraft parts of any value, as alleged in the indictment. See

    Pretrial Detention Hearing Transcript (herein referred to as “Tr”) at pp. 34-35 and 39-40. Defense

    counsel also challenged the Government’s proffered evidence and set forth his argument as to each

    of the factors to be considered by the Court regarding whether the Defendant presents a risk of

    flight. Defense counsel identified for the Court several friends and family members willing to vouch

    that the defendant was not a flight risk, but he did not seek to present further evidence or witnesses,

    nor did he request an opportunity to cross examine a law enforcement agent involved in the case.2

            At the close of counsels’ arguments, the Court held that the Defendant presents a risk of

    flight, stating that the weight of the evidence against the Defendant is overwhelming that the

    Defendant and his co-defendant, Hassan Saied Keshari, participated in a scheme to export military


            2

            Special Agent Blake Schnitker, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, was present for the
    hearing but was not called by either party or the Court to testify.

                                                       3
Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS         Document 91         Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008               Page 4 of 12



    goods to Iran. In support of these findings, the Court explained that it had considered that the

    Defendants admitted during post-arrest interviews that they knew these goods were going to Iran

    and that circumstantial evidence, including emails and general knowledge based on recent publicity

    about Iran and the use of F-14s by the Iranian military, also lead to the conclusion that these

    Defendants knew the goods were going to Iran. See Pretrial Detention Hearing Transcript at pp. 46-

    47.

             The Court also found by a preponderance of the evidence3 that no condition or combination

    of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of this Defendant as required at future

    proceedings. In support of this finding, the Court explained that it had considered that the Defendant

    was born in Romania, is very familiar with international travel and does substantial international

    business. The Court also considered that the Defendant has traveled frequently throughout the world

    and that he possesses a pilot’s license. The Court further considered that the defendant had a

    substantial amount of cash in his house at the time of his arrest and that defendant has been involved

    in millions of dollars of business in the airline industry. Finally, the Court explained that although

    the Defendant has substantial family ties in the community, the Court did not find that this was

    sufficient to reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future court proceedings. See Tr. at pp.

    48-50.

             The Defendant has now filed a Motion to Reopen the Detention Hearing on the grounds,

    generally, that “the pre-indictment claims made by the government went unchallenged because, at

    the time, the evidence had not yet been provided to either defendant.” See Petition at ¶ 4.

             3

           The need only find by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant presents a risk of flight.
    See US v. Quartermaine, 913 F.2d 910, 917 (11th Cir. 1990);US v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 489 (11th Cir.
    1988).

                                                       4
Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS        Document 91         Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008              Page 5 of 12



    Defendant’s claims certainly do not demonstrate that there is information that was not previously

    known to the Defendant which bears on the issue of risk of flight and which warrants a reopening

    of the hearing. A review of Defendant’s Motion makes this clear.

         Information About Defendant’s Personal Background Was All Previously Known.

           Specifically, on the bottom of page 3 through page 4 of his Petition, Defendant reviews his

    personal background, as well as that of his immediate family. Of course, this is all information

    known to the Defendant at the time of his original hearing, as it is the Defendant’s personal

    information. And, this is all information laid out by Defendant’s previous counsel during the

    detention hearing.

           Defendant also states that he knew he was being investigated but did not flee. Defendant

    fails to explain this allegation. The Government is unaware of how the defendant could have known

    that he was being investigated. No one approached the defendant in connection with this

    investigation and advised him that he was being investigated. And, nothing was done as part of this

    investigation that might have put defendant on notice that he was being investigated. Rather, a brief

    surveillance was conducted on one date prior to defendant’s arrest for the purpose of preparing an

    operation plan for execution of the arrest warrant for the defendant. Nonetheless, this was all

    information known to the defendant at the time of the pretrial detention hearing.

           Defendant further claims that he cooperated with law enforcement during his post-arrest

    statement. To the contrary, as explained at the pretrial detention hearing, other than waiving his

    Miranda rights and agreeing to be interviewed, Defendant Bujduveanu was otherwise rather

    uncooperative during his post-arrest interview. See Tr. p.15:15-18 and 26:17-23. Again, this is

    information that was known to the defendant at the time of the pretrial detention hearing.


                                                     5
Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS         Document 91         Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008              Page 6 of 12



           Certainly, none of this information warrants a reopening of the hearing as it was known to

    the Defendant at the time of the original hearing.

     Defendant’s Arguments That the Government’s Claims Were Exaggerated Are Baseless.

           The Government also notes that, other than laying out information which was already known

    to the defendant at the time of the pretrial detention hearing, the defendant makes one wholly

    unsupported general claim that “the defendant maintains that the government grossly exaggerated

    and/or misrepresented what they had in order to persuade Judge O’Sullivan to hold Mr. Bujduveanu

    without bond.” The Government takes allegations that counsel “misrepresented” anything to the

    Court very seriously. As indicated, the allegation is completely unsupported in Defendant’s Motion

    and lacks any specific basis upon which to make such a serious claim. Without any reference to a

    specific “gross exaggeration” or “misrepresentation”, it is somewhat impossible to respond to this

    allegation. Therefore, at this point, the Government simply submits that the defendant’s allegation

    is incorrect and stands by its representations on the record before the court at the Pretrial Detention

    Hearing.

           Defendant’s Petition, therefore, does nothing more than re-hash what was already before this

    Court and does not lend itself to support a finding by the Magistrate Judge that “information exists

    that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing,” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) .

    Therefore, Defendant’s Motion, insofar as it is a Motion to Reopen the Pretrial Detention Hearing,

    must be denied as a matter of law.



    II. Defendant Fails to Demonstrate That the Magistrate’s Findings Were Clearly Erroneous.




                                                      6
Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS        Document 91        Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008             Page 7 of 12



           Although it is unclear from his Petition, the defendant appears to suggest that he also seeks

    to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s Detention Order as to Defendant Bujduveanu. To succeed on such

    an appeal, the defendant must demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge’s findings are clearly

    erroneous. The record reflects that the Magistrate Judge’s findings in this case are correct and

    clearly supported by the record. Defendant’s unsupported allegation to the contrary is wholly

    without merit and has no support in the facts. The Motion should, therefore, be denied without

    further hearing.

           As the record in this case and Defendant’s personal background make clear, Defendant

    Bujduveanu is a very real flight risk. The United States demonstrated at the pretrial detention

    hearing by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can

    reasonably assure that this Defendant will appear for future court appearances as directed. The

    United States remains very concerned that should Defendant Bujduveanu be released from custody,

    he will flee from the United States.

             The Defendant’s Petition Is Untimely and Should Be Procedurally Barred.

           Pursuant to Southern District of Florida, Magistrate Judge Rule 4(a), “Any party may appeal

    from a Magistrate Judge’s order determining a motion or matter under subsection 1(c) of these rules

    [“Determination of Non-Dispositive Pretrial Matters”] within 10 days after being served with the

    Magistrate Judge’s order...” See also Fed.R.Cr.Pr.59(a). The Magistrate Judge’s Detention Order

    as to Traian Bujduveanu was signed and filed by the court with the CM-ECF system on June 26,

    2008. The time for filing an appeal of the detention order has long since expired, and defendant

    presents no reason why this Court should consider such a Petition so far out of time.




                                                    7
Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS        Document 91        Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008             Page 8 of 12



           Even if this Court considers the merits of the Petition, the unsubstantiated Petition is

    completely without merit.

      The Magistrate’s Findings Were Not Clearly Erroneous and Are Entitled to Deference.

           A person who has been ordered detained by a magistrate judge may file a motion for

    revocation or amendment of the order with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense.

    18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). The Eleventh Circuit has held that when a defendant files a motion to revoke

    a magistrate judge’s pretrial detention order, the district court should “undertake an independent

    review of the case.” United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 489 (11th Cir. 1988); United States v.

    Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1987). However, in so holding, the court rejected the notion

    that such “independent review” requires the district court judge to conduct a de novo hearing when

    reviewing the magistrate judge’s detention order. Rather, the court explained, “de novo review

    [only] requires the court to exercise independent consideration of all facts properly before it...”

    Gaviria, 828 F.2d at 670 (citing United States v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1467, 1480 (11th Cir. 1985). See

    also King, 849 F.2d at 489-490. Further, the Eleventh Circuit has been clear that it is well within

    the discretion of the district court judge, based solely on a careful review of the pleadings and

    evidence developed at the magistrate’s detention hearing, to adopt the magistrate’s order should it

    determine that the magistrate’s findings are supported and his legal conclusions are correct. King,

    849 F.2d 485. Indeed, the magistrate’s findings must be given “respectful consideration.” Id; United

    States v. Suppa, 799 F.2d 115, 120 (3d Cir. 1986); United States v. Williams, 753 F.2d 329, 333 (4th

    Cir. 1985).

           The instant case presents the precise circumstances in which such deference to the

    magistrate’s findings and conclusions is warranted. Defendant has articulated no legitimate basis


                                                     8
Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS        Document 91         Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008               Page 9 of 12



    upon which to question Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan’s findings or legal conclusions. To the

    contrary, as discussed above, the defendant simply makes one unsupported and unspecific allegation

    that “the government grossly exaggerated and/or misrepresented what they had in order to persuade

    Judge O’Sullivan to hold Mr. Bujduveanu without bond.” Defendant’s Petition at p.2 ¶ 6.

    Defendant’s counsel also makes a blanket statement that he, the undersigned counsel for

    Bujduveanu, “believes that the government’s position alleging that Mr. Bujduveanu poses such a

    flight risk that he must be held without bond is without merit.” Defendant’s Petition at p.2 ¶ 6.

    Defendant fails to point to any specific information upon which to question the Magistrate Judge’s

    findings and certainly does not point to any reason to believe that the Magistrate’s findings were

    clearly erroneous.

           The record reflects that the Magistrate Judge carefully considered each of the factors set forth

    in the Bail Reform Act and found that the Government had amply proven each of the factors in favor

    of a determination that the Defendant is a flight risk. Defendant’s unsupported allegations to the

    contrary do not cast any real doubt on the Magistrate Judge’s findings nor on the bases underlying

    those findings. The Defendant’s claims of exaggeration and misrepresentation by the Government

    at the pretrial detention hearing are wholly without merit.

           A reading of the pretrial detention hearing transcript demonstrates that the Government

    proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Bujduveanu is a flight risk. Each of the

    factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) weighs heavily in favor of the determination that

    Bujduveanu is a serious flight risk. Bujduveanu is charged with assisting the Islamic Republic of

    Iran by providing much needed aircraft parts, including parts for aircraft used exclusively by the

    Iranian military. The weight of the evidence against him is substantial given the voluminous


                                                      9
Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS         Document 91         Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008               Page 10 of 12



     documents and email communications documenting the charged offenses, in addition to

     Bujduveanu’s own post-arrest admissions concerning his knowledge of aircraft parts and the

     applicable regulations, as well as the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of new, boxed

     military aircraft parts were found during the search of his residence. Bujduveanu’s characteristics

     demonstrate that he has every incentive and opportunity to flee from the United States given his

     close contact and many business ties throughout the world. He has demonstrated a willingness and

     ability to travel internationally very frequently, including at least 11 international trips within the

     last 5 years and 2 trips to Romania within the 6 months prior to his arrest, as well as plans for travel

     to Japan in the month following his arrest and his possession of a pilot’s license. He has also

     demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate with authorities by lying to investigators throughout his

     post-arrest interview. Nothing in Defendant’s Petition casts any doubt as to any of these factors.

            When each of these factors is considered, it is clear that Bujduveanu poses a serious risk of

     flight, and the Magistrate Judge was absolutely correct in so holding. Therefore, to the extent that

     the defendant’s Petition is intended as a Motion to Revoke the Pretrial Detention Order, the Petition

     is without merit and should be denied



                                               CONCLUSION

            In sum, the Defendant has not demonstrated that there exists new information that was not

     known to him at the time of the original detention hearing that has a material bearing on the issue

     of whether the Defendant is a risk of flight. As the Court found at the original pretrial detention

     hearing, all of the factors considered by the Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) lead to the

     conclusion that there are no conditions or combinations that will reasonably assure that the


                                                       10
Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS        Document 91        Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008           Page 11 of 12



     Defendant will appear as needed. Moreover, Defendant fails to demonstrate in his untimely Petition

     that the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions were clearly erroneous.

            Therefore, the Defendant’s Petition for Review of Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation

     Denying Defendant’s Motion for Bond and Granting Government’s Motion for Pretrial Detention

     Hearing should be denied, and the Defendant should remain detained pending trial in this case.



                                                         Respectfully submitted,
                                                         R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
                                                         UNITED STATES ATTORNEY



                                                  By:      S/ Melissa Damian
                                                          Melissa Damian
                                                          Assistant United States Attorney
                                                          Florida Bar No. 0068063
                                                          99 Northeast 4th Street
                                                          Miami, Florida 33132-2111
                                                          Tel: (305) 961-9018
                                                          Fax: (305) 536-4675




                                                    11
Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS       Document 91        Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008           Page 12 of 12



                                    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

            I hereby certify that on September 22, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

     Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to

     Mark Eiglarsh, counsel for Defendant Traian Bujduveanu.



                                                        S/ Melissa Damian
                                                        Melissa Damian
                                                        Assistant United States Attorney




                                                   12

Contenu connexe

Tendances

BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
 
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
 
Omnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
Omnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEYOmnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
Omnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEYjjohnsebastianattorney
 
Titlow v. Burt U.S. Supreme Court brief
Titlow v. Burt U.S. Supreme Court briefTitlow v. Burt U.S. Supreme Court brief
Titlow v. Burt U.S. Supreme Court briefChris Harden
 
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT ProductionFederal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT ProductionMarcellus Drilling News
 
Effectively Arguing Constitutional Speedy Trial Violations in Georgia Crimina...
Effectively Arguing Constitutional Speedy Trial Violations in Georgia Crimina...Effectively Arguing Constitutional Speedy Trial Violations in Georgia Crimina...
Effectively Arguing Constitutional Speedy Trial Violations in Georgia Crimina...Ben Sessions
 
Motions to Suppress v. Motions in LImine - Georgia Criminal Motions Practice
Motions to Suppress v. Motions in LImine - Georgia Criminal Motions PracticeMotions to Suppress v. Motions in LImine - Georgia Criminal Motions Practice
Motions to Suppress v. Motions in LImine - Georgia Criminal Motions PracticeBen Sessions
 
Online version black and white motion practice in criminal trials power point...
Online version black and white motion practice in criminal trials power point...Online version black and white motion practice in criminal trials power point...
Online version black and white motion practice in criminal trials power point...jjohnsebastianattorney
 
Navy sea ls-pi-order-[4706]
Navy sea ls-pi-order-[4706]Navy sea ls-pi-order-[4706]
Navy sea ls-pi-order-[4706]Laurent Sailly
 
Portfolio assignment legal ethics FD
Portfolio assignment legal ethics FDPortfolio assignment legal ethics FD
Portfolio assignment legal ethics FDAmanda Talbert
 
Winning the Unwinnable DUI Case
Winning the Unwinnable DUI CaseWinning the Unwinnable DUI Case
Winning the Unwinnable DUI CaseBen Sessions
 
Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...
Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...
Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...Cocoselul Inaripat
 

Tendances (14)

BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016
 
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
 
Omnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
Omnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEYOmnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
Omnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
 
Titlow v. Burt U.S. Supreme Court brief
Titlow v. Burt U.S. Supreme Court briefTitlow v. Burt U.S. Supreme Court brief
Titlow v. Burt U.S. Supreme Court brief
 
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT ProductionFederal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
 
Effectively Arguing Constitutional Speedy Trial Violations in Georgia Crimina...
Effectively Arguing Constitutional Speedy Trial Violations in Georgia Crimina...Effectively Arguing Constitutional Speedy Trial Violations in Georgia Crimina...
Effectively Arguing Constitutional Speedy Trial Violations in Georgia Crimina...
 
Motions to Suppress v. Motions in LImine - Georgia Criminal Motions Practice
Motions to Suppress v. Motions in LImine - Georgia Criminal Motions PracticeMotions to Suppress v. Motions in LImine - Georgia Criminal Motions Practice
Motions to Suppress v. Motions in LImine - Georgia Criminal Motions Practice
 
Online version black and white motion practice in criminal trials power point...
Online version black and white motion practice in criminal trials power point...Online version black and white motion practice in criminal trials power point...
Online version black and white motion practice in criminal trials power point...
 
Navy sea ls-pi-order-[4706]
Navy sea ls-pi-order-[4706]Navy sea ls-pi-order-[4706]
Navy sea ls-pi-order-[4706]
 
Portfolio assignment legal ethics FD
Portfolio assignment legal ethics FDPortfolio assignment legal ethics FD
Portfolio assignment legal ethics FD
 
Winning the Unwinnable DUI Case
Winning the Unwinnable DUI CaseWinning the Unwinnable DUI Case
Winning the Unwinnable DUI Case
 
21 60845-cv0
21 60845-cv021 60845-cv0
21 60845-cv0
 
Doc.89
Doc.89Doc.89
Doc.89
 
Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...
Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...
Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...
 

En vedette

Government’s response to defendant bujduveanu’s motion for hearing re detenti...
Government’s response to defendant bujduveanu’s motion for hearing re detenti...Government’s response to defendant bujduveanu’s motion for hearing re detenti...
Government’s response to defendant bujduveanu’s motion for hearing re detenti...Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Defendant traian bujduveanu's motion for severance and incorporated memorandu...
Defendant traian bujduveanu's motion for severance and incorporated memorandu...Defendant traian bujduveanu's motion for severance and incorporated memorandu...
Defendant traian bujduveanu's motion for severance and incorporated memorandu...Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Order requiring joint scheduling report
Order requiring joint scheduling reportOrder requiring joint scheduling report
Order requiring joint scheduling reportCocoselul Inaripat
 
Affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment2
Affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment2Affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment2
Affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment2Cocoselul Inaripat
 

En vedette (9)

Government’s response to defendant bujduveanu’s motion for hearing re detenti...
Government’s response to defendant bujduveanu’s motion for hearing re detenti...Government’s response to defendant bujduveanu’s motion for hearing re detenti...
Government’s response to defendant bujduveanu’s motion for hearing re detenti...
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
 
Defendant traian bujduveanu's motion for severance and incorporated memorandu...
Defendant traian bujduveanu's motion for severance and incorporated memorandu...Defendant traian bujduveanu's motion for severance and incorporated memorandu...
Defendant traian bujduveanu's motion for severance and incorporated memorandu...
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
 
Government fabrications 3
Government fabrications 3Government fabrications 3
Government fabrications 3
 
Government fabrications 3
Government fabrications 3Government fabrications 3
Government fabrications 3
 
Order requiring joint scheduling report
Order requiring joint scheduling reportOrder requiring joint scheduling report
Order requiring joint scheduling report
 
Affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment2
Affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment2Affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment2
Affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment2
 
Joint shedilling report
Joint shedilling reportJoint shedilling report
Joint shedilling report
 

Similaire à Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s report and recommendation denying defendant’s motion for bond and granting government’s motion for pretrial detention

Government’s response to defendant traian bujduveanu’s motion for severance
Government’s response to defendant traian bujduveanu’s motion for severanceGovernment’s response to defendant traian bujduveanu’s motion for severance
Government’s response to defendant traian bujduveanu’s motion for severanceCocoselul Inaripat
 
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Alfredo Barba Mariscal enjuiciado en EUA por tráfico de drogas
Alfredo Barba Mariscal enjuiciado en EUA por tráfico de drogasAlfredo Barba Mariscal enjuiciado en EUA por tráfico de drogas
Alfredo Barba Mariscal enjuiciado en EUA por tráfico de drogasMexicorrupto
 
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-californiaGood legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-californiascreaminc
 
General order on discovery objections
General order on discovery objectionsGeneral order on discovery objections
General order on discovery objectionsCocoselul Inaripat
 
General order on discovery objections
General order on discovery objectionsGeneral order on discovery objections
General order on discovery objectionsCocoselul Inaripat
 
Former State Rep Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy
Former State Rep Pleads Guilty to  ConspiracyFormer State Rep Pleads Guilty to  Conspiracy
Former State Rep Pleads Guilty to ConspiracyAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
 
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge DismissalFindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge DismissalLegalDocs
 

Similaire à Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s report and recommendation denying defendant’s motion for bond and granting government’s motion for pretrial detention (20)

Government’s response to defendant traian bujduveanu’s motion for severance
Government’s response to defendant traian bujduveanu’s motion for severanceGovernment’s response to defendant traian bujduveanu’s motion for severance
Government’s response to defendant traian bujduveanu’s motion for severance
 
Detention order
Detention orderDetention order
Detention order
 
Detention order
Detention orderDetention order
Detention order
 
Kobayashi detention order
Kobayashi detention orderKobayashi detention order
Kobayashi detention order
 
Jail writ-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
Jail writ-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEYJail writ-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
Jail writ-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
 
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
 
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
 
Doc.91
Doc.91Doc.91
Doc.91
 
Doc.91
Doc.91Doc.91
Doc.91
 
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...
 
Alfredo Barba Mariscal enjuiciado en EUA por tráfico de drogas
Alfredo Barba Mariscal enjuiciado en EUA por tráfico de drogasAlfredo Barba Mariscal enjuiciado en EUA por tráfico de drogas
Alfredo Barba Mariscal enjuiciado en EUA por tráfico de drogas
 
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-californiaGood legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
 
Yura court orders
Yura  court ordersYura  court orders
Yura court orders
 
Doc 51
Doc 51Doc 51
Doc 51
 
Doc 51
Doc 51Doc 51
Doc 51
 
General order on discovery objections
General order on discovery objectionsGeneral order on discovery objections
General order on discovery objections
 
General order on discovery objections
General order on discovery objectionsGeneral order on discovery objections
General order on discovery objections
 
Former State Rep Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy
Former State Rep Pleads Guilty to  ConspiracyFormer State Rep Pleads Guilty to  Conspiracy
Former State Rep Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy
 
Wal-Mart Sanctions Order
Wal-Mart Sanctions OrderWal-Mart Sanctions Order
Wal-Mart Sanctions Order
 
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge DismissalFindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
 

Plus de Cocoselul Inaripat (20)

Traian Bujduveanu 8
Traian Bujduveanu 8Traian Bujduveanu 8
Traian Bujduveanu 8
 
Traian Bujduveanu 8
Traian Bujduveanu 8Traian Bujduveanu 8
Traian Bujduveanu 8
 
Spyology / vizualizare subiect agentul bujduveanu, sendviş între fbi şi cia
Spyology / vizualizare subiect   agentul bujduveanu, sendviş între fbi şi ciaSpyology / vizualizare subiect   agentul bujduveanu, sendviş între fbi şi cia
Spyology / vizualizare subiect agentul bujduveanu, sendviş între fbi şi cia
 
Traian bujduveanu 1
Traian bujduveanu 1Traian bujduveanu 1
Traian bujduveanu 1
 
Traian bujduveanu 5
Traian bujduveanu 5Traian bujduveanu 5
Traian bujduveanu 5
 
Traian bujduveanu 4
Traian bujduveanu 4Traian bujduveanu 4
Traian bujduveanu 4
 
Traian bujduveanu 3
Traian bujduveanu 3Traian bujduveanu 3
Traian bujduveanu 3
 
Traian bujduveanu 2
Traian bujduveanu 2Traian bujduveanu 2
Traian bujduveanu 2
 
Traian bujduveanu 7
Traian bujduveanu 7Traian bujduveanu 7
Traian bujduveanu 7
 
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Just...
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Just...Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Just...
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Just...
 
Traian bujduveanu 5
Traian bujduveanu 5Traian bujduveanu 5
Traian bujduveanu 5
 
Traian bujduveanu 1
Traian bujduveanu 1Traian bujduveanu 1
Traian bujduveanu 1
 
Traian bujduveanu 7
Traian bujduveanu 7Traian bujduveanu 7
Traian bujduveanu 7
 
Traian bujduveanu 6
Traian bujduveanu 6Traian bujduveanu 6
Traian bujduveanu 6
 
Traian bujduveanu 5
Traian bujduveanu 5Traian bujduveanu 5
Traian bujduveanu 5
 
Traian bujduveanu 4
Traian bujduveanu 4Traian bujduveanu 4
Traian bujduveanu 4
 
Traian bujduveanu 3
Traian bujduveanu 3Traian bujduveanu 3
Traian bujduveanu 3
 
Traian bujduveanu 3
Traian bujduveanu 3Traian bujduveanu 3
Traian bujduveanu 3
 
Traian bujduveanu 2
Traian bujduveanu 2Traian bujduveanu 2
Traian bujduveanu 2
 
Traian bujduveanu 1
Traian bujduveanu 1Traian bujduveanu 1
Traian bujduveanu 1
 

Dernier

Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptxIntroduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptxMatsuo Lab
 
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond OntologiesLinked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond OntologiesDavid Newbury
 
Machine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdf
Machine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdfMachine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdf
Machine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdfAijun Zhang
 
Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...
Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...
Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...DianaGray10
 
How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?
How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?
How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?IES VE
 
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024SkyPlanner
 
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1DianaGray10
 
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfVideogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfinfogdgmi
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7DianaGray10
 
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024D Cloud Solutions
 
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Adtran
 
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and HazardsComputer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and HazardsSeth Reyes
 
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation DevelopersUiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation DevelopersUiPathCommunity
 
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UbiTrack UK
 
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopNIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopBachir Benyammi
 
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability AdventureOpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability AdventureEric D. Schabell
 
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPAAnypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPAshyamraj55
 
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCostKubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCostMatt Ray
 
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )Brian Pichman
 

Dernier (20)

Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptxIntroduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
 
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond OntologiesLinked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
 
Machine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdf
Machine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdfMachine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdf
Machine Learning Model Validation (Aijun Zhang 2024).pdf
 
Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...
Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...
Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...
 
How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?
How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?
How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?
 
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
 
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
 
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfVideogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
 
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
 
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
 
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and HazardsComputer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
Computer 10: Lesson 10 - Online Crimes and Hazards
 
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation DevelopersUiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
 
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
 
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopNIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
 
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability AdventureOpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
 
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPAAnypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
 
201610817 - edge part1
201610817 - edge part1201610817 - edge part1
201610817 - edge part1
 
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCostKubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
 
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
 

Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s report and recommendation denying defendant’s motion for bond and granting government’s motion for pretrial detention

  • 1. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-20612-CR-SEITZ Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU, Defendant. ________________________________/ GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR BOND AND GRANTING GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR PRETRIAL DETENTION COMES NOW, the United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, and files this Response to Defendant Bujduveanu’s Petition for Review of Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation Denying Defendant’s Motion for Bond and Granting Government’s Motion for Pretrial Detention Hearing (D.E. 79), filed September 9, 2008, and states as follows: Defendant’s Petition should be denied because Defendant Bujduveanu has failed to demonstrate any reason why the Pretrial Detention Hearing should be reopened nor that the Magistrate Judge’s findings were clearly erroneous. Defendant’s Petition appears to rely on two separate bases in support of his request to review the Magistrate Judge’s Order1: (1) Defendant seeks to reopen the Pretrial Detention Hearing, 1 In his Petition, Defendant refers to the Magistrate Judge’s “Report and Recommendation.” In fact, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order pursuant to his authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a) and SDFL Mag J Rule 1. See D.E. 16 (Detention Order as to Traian Bujduveanu).
  • 2. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 2 of 12 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) (see Defendant’s Petition at ¶ 7); and, (2) Defendant seeks to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s Order to the District Court (see citation in introductory paragraph to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)). Defendant is not entitled to relief under either basis as a matter of law. I. Defendant Demonstrates No Basis Upon Which to Reopen the Pretrial Detention Hearing. Defendant has not demonstrated that any information exists that was not known to the defendant at the time of the pretrial detention hearing which has a material bearing on the issue of whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. Defendant is not, therefore, entitled to have the pretrial detention hearing reopened. As Defendant is aware, and the Bail Reform Act makes clear, the pretrial detention hearing may be reopened “if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue of whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required...” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) (emphasis added). A review of Defendant’s Petition confirms that the only things that have changed since the pretrial detention hearing on June 26, 2008, are that a federal grand jury returned an indictment against the Defendant, Defendant retained new defense counsel, and Defendant received the discovery in the case. None of these issues has a bearing on the issue of whether Defendant is a risk of flight - at least not toward a finding that he is any less of a risk of flight than he was at the time of the original pretrial detention hearing. Rather, as set forth below, Defendant’s Petition only lays out information which was known to Defendant at the time of his pretrial detention hearing, the majority of which was actually discussed at the hearing. The June 26, 2008, Detention Hearing 2
  • 3. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 3 of 12 On June 26, 2008, this Court held a detention hearing. Defendant was present at that hearing and was represented by privately retained counsel. At the hearing, the Government moved for pretrial detention on the basis that the Defendant presents a risk of flight. Undersigned counsel for the Government proceeded, by way of proffer, to summarize the charges against the Defendant and the facts underlying those charges, as well as the facts underlying each of the factors the Court must consider in determining whether the defendant presents a risk of flight. It is settled in the Eleventh Circuit that the Government, as well as the defense, “may proceed by proffering evidence subject to the discretion of the judicial officer presiding at the detention hearing.” United States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667, 669 (11th Cir. 1987). Defense counsel then also proceeded to proffer evidence in support of the Defendant’s claim that he did not export or possess military aircraft parts of any value, as alleged in the indictment. See Pretrial Detention Hearing Transcript (herein referred to as “Tr”) at pp. 34-35 and 39-40. Defense counsel also challenged the Government’s proffered evidence and set forth his argument as to each of the factors to be considered by the Court regarding whether the Defendant presents a risk of flight. Defense counsel identified for the Court several friends and family members willing to vouch that the defendant was not a flight risk, but he did not seek to present further evidence or witnesses, nor did he request an opportunity to cross examine a law enforcement agent involved in the case.2 At the close of counsels’ arguments, the Court held that the Defendant presents a risk of flight, stating that the weight of the evidence against the Defendant is overwhelming that the Defendant and his co-defendant, Hassan Saied Keshari, participated in a scheme to export military 2 Special Agent Blake Schnitker, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, was present for the hearing but was not called by either party or the Court to testify. 3
  • 4. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 4 of 12 goods to Iran. In support of these findings, the Court explained that it had considered that the Defendants admitted during post-arrest interviews that they knew these goods were going to Iran and that circumstantial evidence, including emails and general knowledge based on recent publicity about Iran and the use of F-14s by the Iranian military, also lead to the conclusion that these Defendants knew the goods were going to Iran. See Pretrial Detention Hearing Transcript at pp. 46- 47. The Court also found by a preponderance of the evidence3 that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of this Defendant as required at future proceedings. In support of this finding, the Court explained that it had considered that the Defendant was born in Romania, is very familiar with international travel and does substantial international business. The Court also considered that the Defendant has traveled frequently throughout the world and that he possesses a pilot’s license. The Court further considered that the defendant had a substantial amount of cash in his house at the time of his arrest and that defendant has been involved in millions of dollars of business in the airline industry. Finally, the Court explained that although the Defendant has substantial family ties in the community, the Court did not find that this was sufficient to reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future court proceedings. See Tr. at pp. 48-50. The Defendant has now filed a Motion to Reopen the Detention Hearing on the grounds, generally, that “the pre-indictment claims made by the government went unchallenged because, at the time, the evidence had not yet been provided to either defendant.” See Petition at ¶ 4. 3 The need only find by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant presents a risk of flight. See US v. Quartermaine, 913 F.2d 910, 917 (11th Cir. 1990);US v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 489 (11th Cir. 1988). 4
  • 5. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 5 of 12 Defendant’s claims certainly do not demonstrate that there is information that was not previously known to the Defendant which bears on the issue of risk of flight and which warrants a reopening of the hearing. A review of Defendant’s Motion makes this clear. Information About Defendant’s Personal Background Was All Previously Known. Specifically, on the bottom of page 3 through page 4 of his Petition, Defendant reviews his personal background, as well as that of his immediate family. Of course, this is all information known to the Defendant at the time of his original hearing, as it is the Defendant’s personal information. And, this is all information laid out by Defendant’s previous counsel during the detention hearing. Defendant also states that he knew he was being investigated but did not flee. Defendant fails to explain this allegation. The Government is unaware of how the defendant could have known that he was being investigated. No one approached the defendant in connection with this investigation and advised him that he was being investigated. And, nothing was done as part of this investigation that might have put defendant on notice that he was being investigated. Rather, a brief surveillance was conducted on one date prior to defendant’s arrest for the purpose of preparing an operation plan for execution of the arrest warrant for the defendant. Nonetheless, this was all information known to the defendant at the time of the pretrial detention hearing. Defendant further claims that he cooperated with law enforcement during his post-arrest statement. To the contrary, as explained at the pretrial detention hearing, other than waiving his Miranda rights and agreeing to be interviewed, Defendant Bujduveanu was otherwise rather uncooperative during his post-arrest interview. See Tr. p.15:15-18 and 26:17-23. Again, this is information that was known to the defendant at the time of the pretrial detention hearing. 5
  • 6. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 6 of 12 Certainly, none of this information warrants a reopening of the hearing as it was known to the Defendant at the time of the original hearing. Defendant’s Arguments That the Government’s Claims Were Exaggerated Are Baseless. The Government also notes that, other than laying out information which was already known to the defendant at the time of the pretrial detention hearing, the defendant makes one wholly unsupported general claim that “the defendant maintains that the government grossly exaggerated and/or misrepresented what they had in order to persuade Judge O’Sullivan to hold Mr. Bujduveanu without bond.” The Government takes allegations that counsel “misrepresented” anything to the Court very seriously. As indicated, the allegation is completely unsupported in Defendant’s Motion and lacks any specific basis upon which to make such a serious claim. Without any reference to a specific “gross exaggeration” or “misrepresentation”, it is somewhat impossible to respond to this allegation. Therefore, at this point, the Government simply submits that the defendant’s allegation is incorrect and stands by its representations on the record before the court at the Pretrial Detention Hearing. Defendant’s Petition, therefore, does nothing more than re-hash what was already before this Court and does not lend itself to support a finding by the Magistrate Judge that “information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing,” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) . Therefore, Defendant’s Motion, insofar as it is a Motion to Reopen the Pretrial Detention Hearing, must be denied as a matter of law. II. Defendant Fails to Demonstrate That the Magistrate’s Findings Were Clearly Erroneous. 6
  • 7. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 7 of 12 Although it is unclear from his Petition, the defendant appears to suggest that he also seeks to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s Detention Order as to Defendant Bujduveanu. To succeed on such an appeal, the defendant must demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge’s findings are clearly erroneous. The record reflects that the Magistrate Judge’s findings in this case are correct and clearly supported by the record. Defendant’s unsupported allegation to the contrary is wholly without merit and has no support in the facts. The Motion should, therefore, be denied without further hearing. As the record in this case and Defendant’s personal background make clear, Defendant Bujduveanu is a very real flight risk. The United States demonstrated at the pretrial detention hearing by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably assure that this Defendant will appear for future court appearances as directed. The United States remains very concerned that should Defendant Bujduveanu be released from custody, he will flee from the United States. The Defendant’s Petition Is Untimely and Should Be Procedurally Barred. Pursuant to Southern District of Florida, Magistrate Judge Rule 4(a), “Any party may appeal from a Magistrate Judge’s order determining a motion or matter under subsection 1(c) of these rules [“Determination of Non-Dispositive Pretrial Matters”] within 10 days after being served with the Magistrate Judge’s order...” See also Fed.R.Cr.Pr.59(a). The Magistrate Judge’s Detention Order as to Traian Bujduveanu was signed and filed by the court with the CM-ECF system on June 26, 2008. The time for filing an appeal of the detention order has long since expired, and defendant presents no reason why this Court should consider such a Petition so far out of time. 7
  • 8. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 8 of 12 Even if this Court considers the merits of the Petition, the unsubstantiated Petition is completely without merit. The Magistrate’s Findings Were Not Clearly Erroneous and Are Entitled to Deference. A person who has been ordered detained by a magistrate judge may file a motion for revocation or amendment of the order with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). The Eleventh Circuit has held that when a defendant files a motion to revoke a magistrate judge’s pretrial detention order, the district court should “undertake an independent review of the case.” United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 489 (11th Cir. 1988); United States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1987). However, in so holding, the court rejected the notion that such “independent review” requires the district court judge to conduct a de novo hearing when reviewing the magistrate judge’s detention order. Rather, the court explained, “de novo review [only] requires the court to exercise independent consideration of all facts properly before it...” Gaviria, 828 F.2d at 670 (citing United States v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1467, 1480 (11th Cir. 1985). See also King, 849 F.2d at 489-490. Further, the Eleventh Circuit has been clear that it is well within the discretion of the district court judge, based solely on a careful review of the pleadings and evidence developed at the magistrate’s detention hearing, to adopt the magistrate’s order should it determine that the magistrate’s findings are supported and his legal conclusions are correct. King, 849 F.2d 485. Indeed, the magistrate’s findings must be given “respectful consideration.” Id; United States v. Suppa, 799 F.2d 115, 120 (3d Cir. 1986); United States v. Williams, 753 F.2d 329, 333 (4th Cir. 1985). The instant case presents the precise circumstances in which such deference to the magistrate’s findings and conclusions is warranted. Defendant has articulated no legitimate basis 8
  • 9. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 9 of 12 upon which to question Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan’s findings or legal conclusions. To the contrary, as discussed above, the defendant simply makes one unsupported and unspecific allegation that “the government grossly exaggerated and/or misrepresented what they had in order to persuade Judge O’Sullivan to hold Mr. Bujduveanu without bond.” Defendant’s Petition at p.2 ¶ 6. Defendant’s counsel also makes a blanket statement that he, the undersigned counsel for Bujduveanu, “believes that the government’s position alleging that Mr. Bujduveanu poses such a flight risk that he must be held without bond is without merit.” Defendant’s Petition at p.2 ¶ 6. Defendant fails to point to any specific information upon which to question the Magistrate Judge’s findings and certainly does not point to any reason to believe that the Magistrate’s findings were clearly erroneous. The record reflects that the Magistrate Judge carefully considered each of the factors set forth in the Bail Reform Act and found that the Government had amply proven each of the factors in favor of a determination that the Defendant is a flight risk. Defendant’s unsupported allegations to the contrary do not cast any real doubt on the Magistrate Judge’s findings nor on the bases underlying those findings. The Defendant’s claims of exaggeration and misrepresentation by the Government at the pretrial detention hearing are wholly without merit. A reading of the pretrial detention hearing transcript demonstrates that the Government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Bujduveanu is a flight risk. Each of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) weighs heavily in favor of the determination that Bujduveanu is a serious flight risk. Bujduveanu is charged with assisting the Islamic Republic of Iran by providing much needed aircraft parts, including parts for aircraft used exclusively by the Iranian military. The weight of the evidence against him is substantial given the voluminous 9
  • 10. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 10 of 12 documents and email communications documenting the charged offenses, in addition to Bujduveanu’s own post-arrest admissions concerning his knowledge of aircraft parts and the applicable regulations, as well as the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of new, boxed military aircraft parts were found during the search of his residence. Bujduveanu’s characteristics demonstrate that he has every incentive and opportunity to flee from the United States given his close contact and many business ties throughout the world. He has demonstrated a willingness and ability to travel internationally very frequently, including at least 11 international trips within the last 5 years and 2 trips to Romania within the 6 months prior to his arrest, as well as plans for travel to Japan in the month following his arrest and his possession of a pilot’s license. He has also demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate with authorities by lying to investigators throughout his post-arrest interview. Nothing in Defendant’s Petition casts any doubt as to any of these factors. When each of these factors is considered, it is clear that Bujduveanu poses a serious risk of flight, and the Magistrate Judge was absolutely correct in so holding. Therefore, to the extent that the defendant’s Petition is intended as a Motion to Revoke the Pretrial Detention Order, the Petition is without merit and should be denied CONCLUSION In sum, the Defendant has not demonstrated that there exists new information that was not known to him at the time of the original detention hearing that has a material bearing on the issue of whether the Defendant is a risk of flight. As the Court found at the original pretrial detention hearing, all of the factors considered by the Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) lead to the conclusion that there are no conditions or combinations that will reasonably assure that the 10
  • 11. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 11 of 12 Defendant will appear as needed. Moreover, Defendant fails to demonstrate in his untimely Petition that the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions were clearly erroneous. Therefore, the Defendant’s Petition for Review of Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation Denying Defendant’s Motion for Bond and Granting Government’s Motion for Pretrial Detention Hearing should be denied, and the Defendant should remain detained pending trial in this case. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: S/ Melissa Damian Melissa Damian Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0068063 99 Northeast 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132-2111 Tel: (305) 961-9018 Fax: (305) 536-4675 11
  • 12. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2008 Page 12 of 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 22, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to Mark Eiglarsh, counsel for Defendant Traian Bujduveanu. S/ Melissa Damian Melissa Damian Assistant United States Attorney 12