United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOC. 14]
S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
3, 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(“FBI”) arrested Defendant Gary J. Boecker in
Florida on a criminal complaint charging him with wire fraud.
25, 2017, Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert held a detention
hearing in Youngstown, Ohio. At the conclusion of the hearing,
Magistrate Judge Limbert found that Defendant is a flight
risk and should be detained pending trial.
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.
Boecker now moves this Court to revoke Magistrate Judge
Limbert's detention finding. For the reasons below, the
Court DENIES Defendant's motion.
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.” 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.
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.” 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
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.
Court conducts its own review and agrees with Magistrate
Judge Limbert's analysis-pretrial detention is
appropriate in this case.
of the Offense
Boecker faces large financial claims. He allegedly absconded
with more than $1 million dollars of client funds.
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