United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING RE: BRETT LILLEMOE'S MOTION FOR BAIL
PENDING APPEAL (DOC. NO. 507)
C. HALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
federal jury found defendant Brett Lillemoe
(“Lillemoe”) guilty of one count of conspiracy to
commit wire fraud and/or bank fraud, and five counts of wire
fraud. See Jury Verdict (Doc. No. 324) at 1-3. The
court denied Lillemoe's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal,
or in the Alternative, a New Trial. See Ruling re:
Mot. for J. of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, a New Trial
(“Ruling”) (Doc. No. 420). After extensive
sentencing hearings, the court sentenced Lillemoe to fifteen
months in prison. See Judgment (Doc. No. 484).
Lillemoe was ordered to self-surrender to the Bureau of
Prisons between September 11, 2017 and September 22, 2017.
before the court is Lillemoe's Motion for Bail Pending
Appeal and for a Stay of the Forfeiture Order. Doc No. 507.
The government opposes Lillemoe's Motion, see
Mem. in Resp. to Def.'s Mot. for Bail pending Appeal and
for a Stay of the Forfeiture Order (“Response”)
(Doc. No. 514), and Lillemoe filed a reply brief,
see Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Bail Pending
Appeal and Stay of Forfeiture Order (“Reply”)
(Doc. No. 515).
reasons set forth below, Lillemoe's Motion is granted in
moves for an order granting bail pending appeal pursuant to
Section 3143(b) of title 18 the United States Code.
See Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Bail Pending Appeal and
Mot. to Stay Forfeiture Order (“Brief”) (Doc. No.
507-1) at 3. Section 3143(b) requires that the court order
the release of a defendant pending appeal if it finds:
(A) 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 . . .; and
(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and
raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result
(ii) an order for a new trial,
(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of
(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than
the total of the time already served plus the expected
duration of the appeal process.
18 U.S.C. § 1343(b)(1). The Second Circuit has clarified
that the requirement that the appeal raise a substantial
question does not require a district court to find that its
own judgment is likely to be reversed on appeal. See
United States v. Randell, 761 F.2d 122, 124 (2d Cir.
1985). Instead, the appeal must raise a question that
“is one of more substance than would be necessary to a
finding that it was not frivolous. It is a ‘close'
question or one that very well could ...