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. Boecker

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio

June 15, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
GARY J. BOECKER, Defendant.

          OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOC. 14]

          JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On May 3, 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) arrested Defendant Gary J. Boecker in Florida on a criminal complaint charging him with wire fraud.

         On May 25, 2017, Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert held a detention hearing in Youngstown, Ohio.[1] At the conclusion of the hearing, Magistrate Judge Limbert found that Defendant is a flight risk and should be detained pending trial.[2]

         On June 6, 2017, a Grand Jury indicted Defendant Boecker on one count of wire fraud, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and one count of False Statements in a Loan Application, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014.[3]

         Defendant Boecker now moves this Court to revoke Magistrate Judge Limbert's detention finding.[4] For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion.

         I. Legal Standard

         “If a person is ordered detained by a magistrate judge, . . . the person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation or amendment of the order.”[5] While there is some debate over what standard of review applies when reviewing the magistrate's decision, most district courts in the Sixth Circuit review the magistrate's order of pretrial detention de novo.[6]

         Under the Bail Reform Act, if “the judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before trial.”[7] It is “the government's ultimate burden is to prove that no conditions of release can assure that the defendant will appear and to assure the safety of the community.”[8]

         In determining whether the government has met its burden of persuasion, the Court considers, among other factors, (1) the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged; (2) the person's history and characteristics, including the person's character, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, and criminal history; and (3) the weight of the evidence against the person.[9]

         II. Discussion

         This Court conducts its own review and agrees with Magistrate Judge Limbert's analysis-pretrial detention is appropriate in this case.

         Nature of the Offense

         Defendant Boecker faces large financial claims. He allegedly absconded with more than $1 million dollars of client funds.

         Defendant argues that his alleged crimes are not crimes of violence, which weighs against pretrial detention. However, the Government does not seek detainment because Defendant is a physical threat to the community. Rather, the Government argues he is likely to flee. The deceit involved in ...


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.