18 U.S.C. § 3145
Review and appeal of a release or detention order
A prior section 3145, act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 821, provided cross references to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for rules covering parties and witnesses, prior to repeal in the revision of this chapter by section 203(a) of Pub. L. 98–473.
1990—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101–647 inserted at end “A person subject to detention pursuant to section 3143(a)(2) or (b)(2), and who meets the conditions of release set forth in section 3143(a)(1) or (b)(1), may be ordered released, under appropriate conditions, by the judicial officer, if it is clearly shown that there are exceptional reasons why such person’s detention would not be appropriate.”
Words “magistrate judge” substituted for “magistrate” in subsecs. (a) and (b) pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 722
cases (122 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: United States v. Stephens, 594 F.3d 1033 (8th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Stephens, 594 F.3d 1033 (8th Cir. 2010). “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3145 (c) and 3731. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610 (10th Cir. 2003). “Cisneros timely filed a notice of appeal to this Court, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .”
United States v. Miller, 568 F. Supp. 2d 764 (E.D. Ky. 2008). “The matter is pending for consideration of Defendant Miller’s motion for release for “exceptional reasons” under 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (c). Although the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to consider the Defendant’s request under this statutory provision, exceptional reasons…”
United States v. Dimattina, 885 F. Supp. 2d 572 (E.D.N.Y 2012). “” 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (c). Nevertheless, the court will follow the majority of courts — including the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — which have found that a district court may grant bail pending appeal.”
United States v. Howard Perry, Glen Hagen, James Geran, Kevin Dorr. United States of Am. v. Howard Perry & Gary Moore, 788 F.2d 100 (3rd Cir. 1986). “The district court reviewed the order pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3145 (b) (West 1985). We have appellate jurisdiction by virtue of 18 U.”
United States v. Eric Munchel, 991 F.3d 1273 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “ate Judge Frensley had found that the government had not met its burden of proving dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence, the government sought and obtained an ex parte stay of that release order that resulted in the appellants being detained for three weeks without any…”
United States v. Melvin Williams, United States of Am. v. Glenn Moore Hawkins, 753 F.2d 329 (4th Cir. 1985). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (b) 6 On December 21, 1984 the district court entertained the motions but because a full transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate had been prepared, did not conduct an eviden-tiary hearing.”
United States v. Harrison, 430 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (M.D. Ga. 2006). “# 232), in which he argued the Court does, in fact, have the discretion to order his release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (c). The Government has filed a brief in response (Doc.”
In Re Sealed Case, 242 F. Supp. 2d 489 (E.D. Mich. 2003). “§ 3143 (a)(2), and (2) the Court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether any exceptional reasons, under 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (c), merit the release of Defendant.”
United States v. Fleet Wallace Maull, 773 F.2d 1479 (8th Cir. 1985). “Judge Garwood’s opinion affirming the action of the district court is instructive: When the district court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (b), acts on a motion to revoke or amend a magistrate’s pretrial detention order, the court acts de novo and makes an independent…”
In re: Roger Stone, Jr., 940 F.3d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “For his part, Stone could have appealed under 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (c), which expressly provides for judicial review of a detention order.”
Lawrence Allen Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir. 1988). “Fassler had been advised of his right to appeal the detention order to the district court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145 . He so moved on August 11, and the district court heard oral argument and additional evidence and took the matter under advisement until September 3.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3145(6) — 1 case
Estrada, Joe Garcia (Tex. App. 2015).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a) — 1 case
United States v. Chrestman (D.D.C. 2021).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) — 3 cases
In re: Roger Stone, Jr., 940 F.3d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “For his part, Stone could have appealed under 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (c), which expressly provides for judicial review of a detention order.”
United States v. Lateef Alagbada (3rd Cir. 2022).
United States v. Braun (D.D.C. 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.