Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ORDER
Before the Court is a motion (Doc. 784) by Defendant Mark Hazelwood to set the terms of
his release pending appeal, as requested by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Doc. 787).
Defendant asks the Court to continue the terms currently in place, with the following changes: to
allow him to render his airplane operable for purposes of legally required maintenance, inspection
(due November 29, 2018), and upgrades (due December 31, 2019); to allow him to keep his
airplane in operable condition, but in another state, for the purpose of selling the airplane, which
would require prospective buyers to be able to take the airplane out for test flights; to allow him
to render his boat operable for the purpose of selling it, as well, and to keep it in another state for
test operation by prospective buyers; and either to remove the condition of home confinement and
monitoring or to allow him to leave his home between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily.
(Doc. 787.)
The United States has responded to Defendant’s motion. (Doc. 786.) The United States
does not object to allowing Defendant to sell his airplane and boat under the supervision of the
Probation Office, but does object to any other change to the current conditions of Defendant’s
release.
The Court ORDERS that Defendant’s pilot may, on specific terms to be set by the
Probation Office, render Defendant’s plane operable; fly the plane to Greeneville, South Carolina,
plane to a facility outside the state of Tennessee for an arm’s length sale, where the plane may
remain operable for testing and due diligence by potential buyers. The Court further ORDERS
that, on specific terms to be set by the Probation Office, Defendant’s boat may be relocated to a
location outside the state of Tennessee, listed for sale with a broker, and rendered operable for
The Court ORDERS that the other terms and conditions of Defendant’s release shall
remain in effect. The Court found following his conviction that Defendant is a flight risk, but that
the conditions the Court then imposed, including home confinement, would reasonably assure
Defendant’s future appearance.1 (Doc. 766 at 2; see also Docs. 497, 519.) In addition, since the
present conditions were set, Defendant has been sentenced. During Defendant’s sentencing
hearing, the Court observed that there was a need for Defendant’s sentence to protect the public,
because the Court concluded there was a risk Defendant would reoffend, that is, commit further
white-collar crimes. Relaxing the current conditions of release would therefore not be in the
interest of justice.
Defendant’s motion (Doc. 784) is GRANTED IN PART as to Defendant’s request for the
Court to set the terms of his release pending appeal and to allow him to take the steps necessary to
permit him to sell his airplane and boat. The motion is DENIED IN PART as to Defendant’s
1
Defendant cites the Court of Appeals’ summary statement that this Court found
Defendant’s release would not pose a risk of flight. (Doc. 784 at 1 (quoting Doc. 787 at 2).)
Defendant overlooks the fact that this Court only found Defendant’s release not to pose a risk of
flight with the imposition of the home-confinement conditions he now seeks to remove or modify.
ENTER:
/s/
CURTIS L. COLLIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE