Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Lillemoe

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

August 11, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
BRETT LILLEMOE, AND PABLO CALDERON, Defendants.

          RULING RE: BRETT LILLEMOE'S MOTION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL (DOC. NO. 507)

          JANET C. HALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         A 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. See id.

         Now 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).

         For the reasons set forth below, Lillemoe's Motion is granted in part.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Lillemoe 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 in-
(i) reversal,
(ii) an order for a new trial,
(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or
(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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.