United States of America v. Nezhinskiy, 25-346

Dimitriy Nezhinskiy was arrested and charged with conspiracy and multiple counts of receiving stolen property, related to operating a nationwide fencing scheme for stolen goods.
Law enforcement recovered over $1.5 million in stolen property (potentially up to $5 million), a firearm, and $100,000 in cash during searches of Nezhinskiy's business and storage units.
Nezhinskiy is an illegal alien with a prior removal order and a significant criminal history, including convictions for robbery and other offenses.
The government argued that Nezhinskiy posed both a danger to the community and a flight risk, partly due to his ability to continue criminal activity while on release.
The magistrate judge initially granted conditional release, but the district court (Judge Kuntz) overruled, ordering detention pending trial based on the Bail Reform Act factors.
On appeal, Nezhinskiy challenged the denial of bond, claiming his proposed safeguards (bond, home detention, family ties) were sufficient.

Issue	Nezhinskiy’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether pretrial detention is justified under the Bail Reform Act	Proposed bond, home detention, and family ties ensure appearance and safety; not a violent crime	Strong evidence, risk of continued crime, extensive criminal history, flight risk as illegal alien facing removal	District court properly denied bail; no clear error in finding danger and flight risk
Danger to the community from release	Not charged with a violent or aggravated crime; past conduct less relevant	Fencing operation incentivizes burglaries; proven links to organized crime and danger	Danger presented by operation and history warrants detention
Weight of evidence against defendant	Challenges the strength/impact of evidence	Overwhelming evidence including undercover buys, surveillance, seized stolen goods, and links to burglary crews	Weight of evidence favors detention
Risk of flight if released	Family ties and prior court appearances reduce risk; not realistically able to flee	Faces decades in prison, subject to removal, substantial assets; monitoring isn’t failsafe	Flight risk established, further supporting detention

United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2004) (district court’s detention decisions reviewed for clear error, deference given to their insights)
United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141 (2d Cir. 1986) (clear error standard for reviewing bail decisions)
United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 1995) (government may proceed by proffer on detention hearings)
United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) (detention may be justified if no conditions assure safety or appearance)
United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628 (2d Cir. 1993) (home detention and monitoring may not sufficiently mitigate risk of flight)
Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001) (clear error review defined as whether the court is left with definite and firm conviction a mistake was made)
Anderson v. Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (factfinder’s choice between two permissible views is not clear error)