Case Information
*1 Case 1:14-cr-20527-MGC Document 128 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2016 Page 1 of 2
UN ITED STA TES D ISTRIC T C O UR T SO U TH ER N DISTRIC T O F FL O R ID A CA SE N O . 14-CR -20527-SEITZ U N ITED STA TES OF AM ER ICA ,
TIFFAN Y SM ITH ,
Defendant.
O RD ER DEN Y IN G M O TIO N FO R BO N D PEN DIN G APPEA L
THIS M ATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's M otion for Release Pending Appeal gDE-1041, her Supplemental Briefing in Support of Her M otion for Bond Pending Appeal (DE- 1271, and the Government's response (DE- 126j. Defendant's initial motion was denied without a statem ent of reasons for the denial. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit rem anded the motion for the lim ited pum ose of entry of an order stating the reasons for the denial. See DE- 124. The Eleventh Circuit's opinion also suggested that supplemental briefing might be helpful to this Court.Consequently, Defendant and the Government filed additional briefing rDE-126 & 127) at this Court's behest.
ln order to prevail on her motion, Defendant must show by clear and convincing evidence that she is not likely to tlee if released and that her appeal is %çnot for the pum ose of delay and raises a substantial question of 1aw 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 tenn of im prisonm ent less than the total of the tim e already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.'' 18 U.S.C. j 3143(b)(1). Defendant cannot meet either requirem ent.
Defendant was charged with and tried on one count of access device fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft. The jury found Defendant guilty on both counts. Thereafter, *2 Case 1:14-cr-20527-MGC Document 128 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2016 Page 2 of 2
Defendant filed a M otion for N ew Trial, in which she argued that she was prevented from presenting her defense because of evidentiary rulings and that the Court erred by permitting the use of hearsay evidence. The Court denied the M otion for New Trial. See DE-81.
Defendant raises those sam e arguments in her current M otion for Bond. A trial court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed by an appellate court using the abuse of discretion standard of review. Unitedstates v. Drurys 396 F.3d 1303, 1315 (1 1th Cir. 2005). Consequently, for the same reasons set out in the order denying the M otion for a New Trial, the Court tsnds that Defendant has not shown that her appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact that is likely to result in reversal, an order for new trial, or a change in her sentence.
Defendant also argues that the Govem ment m ade improper arguments at trial. However, Defendant did not object to these arguments during trial. Further, when put into context, the statem ents Defendant relies on were not improper. Consequently, the Court finds that Defendant has not shown that her appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact that is likely to result in reversal, an order for new trial, or a change in her sentence.
Finally, Defendant has not shown that she is not a flight risk. Defendant is now a convicted felon. Both the fraudulent nature of her crim es and the fact that Defendant was not honest when she testified bolster this conclusion.Therefore, Defendant has failed to meet her burden of establishing that she is not a flight risk. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant's M otion for Release Pending Appeal (DE-104) is DENIED. # DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this /9 *' da of ctober, 2016. PA T ClA A . ElT UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JUD GE cc: Al1 Counsel of Record