U.S. v. Sazenski, 86-5400
| Decision Date | 09 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-5400,86-5400 |
| Citation | 806 F.2d 846 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joseph Michael SAZENSKI, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
No briefs were filed in this case.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, FAGG and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Michael Sazenski appeals from orders of the magistrate 1 and the district court 2 that he be detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3145(b) (1982). Sazenski was charged in a criminal complaint with a single count of attempted possession of 1,500 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 and Sec. 846. At his first appearance on the charge, a detention hearing was scheduled. Following the taking of testimony, the magistrate found that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure that Sazenski would cease to be a danger to the community and that he presents a very real risk of flight if not detained. The district court conducted a de novo review and concluded that the magistrate's decision was well founded. Sazenski appeals to this court arguing that an independent review of the district court's reasoning and conclusion must result in reversal as it is clear that he is not a particularly dangerous defendant, that his release would not endanger anyone, and that a major drug offense does not establish his dangerousness. Sazenski argues that he has established a record of appearance before courts in past proceedings and roots in Minnesota that create strong ties to the community. Based upon our independent review of the record and materials before us, we affirm the order of detention.
We have the obligation to independently assess the merits of applications for release on bail pending appeal. United States v. Maull, 773 F.2d 1479, 1486-88 (8th Cir.1985). We recognize that the revisions of Rule 9 of the Fed.R.App.P. authorize us to consider "such papers, affidavits and portions of the record as the parties shall present." Id. at 1487 (quoting Fed.R.App.P. 9). Also, with respect to factual findings, we apply the clearly erroneous standard, however, ultimate questions flowing from such factual considerations must be the subject of independent review. Id.
We need not make a detailed statement of the magistrate's findings. Sazenski attacks primarily the ultimate questions relating to release or detention rather than the factual foundation. No argument is made that any of the facts found are clearly erroneous. Sazenski was arrested while loading marijuana that was a part of a 1,500 pound purchase with the total price in excess of $400,000. The parties contemplated a total eventual purchase of 6,000 pounds. There was considerable testimony concerning Sazenski's net worth: a one million dollar profit from importing twelve tons of marijuana the year before and his part ownership of a helicopter, Lear jet, and Beech turbo prop twin-engine aircraft. He was convicted of two drug offenses, one of which was reversed on appeal. The transaction involved obtaining nearly $400,000 in a matter of a few hours, a portion of it from a twenty-four hour safety deposit box, which a person identified as Sazenski had rented in the name of Clint Hanson. Affidavits filed with this court, which we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Heidecke
... ... Valukas's testimony provides us the only direct evidence as to when he finally decided to seek the indictment. The trial court ... ...
-
United States v. Marcrum
...drug dealing does constitute a danger and threat to the community, and that fact alone justifies detention.”); United States v. Sazenski, 806 F.2d 846, 848 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 765 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, 81 (2d Cir.1985); United......
-
Moore v. US, 4:CV943364.
...Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to section 3145(c) and Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See United States v. Sazenski, 806 F.2d 846 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Maull, 773 F.2d 1479 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Perdomo, 765 F.2d 942 (9th Cir.1985). He failed to ......
-
United States v. Addison, CRIMINAL NO. 16–191 (RJL/GMH)
...739, 755, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) ; United States v. Perry , 788 F.2d 100, 113 (3d Cir. 1986) ; United States v. Sazenski , 806 F.2d 846, 848 (8th Cir. 1986). Where the judicial officer's justification for detention is premised upon the safety of the community, the decision mu......