Case: 18-6023 Document: 30-1 Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 1 (1 of 4)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540
Deborah S. Hunt POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE Tel. (513) 564-7000
Clerk CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 www.ca6.uscourts.gov

Filed: January 10, 2019

Mr. David John Debold

Mr. Francis M. Hamilton III

Mr. Shon R. Hopwood

Ms. Megan Brenneman Kiernan

Mr. David P. Lewen Jr.

Mr. Henry Charles Phillips

Mr. Kyle Praveen Singhal

Re: Case No. 18-6023, USA v. Mark Hazelwood

Originating Case No. : 3:16-cr-00020-1

Dear Counsel:

The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case.

Sincerely yours,

s/Amy E. Gigliotti on behalf of Robin L. Johnson

Case Manager
Direct Dial No. 513-564-7039

cc: Mr. John L. Medearis

Enclosure
 Case: 18-6023 Document: 30-2 Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 1 (2 of 4)

No. 18-6023
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Jan 10, 2019
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
MARK HAZELWOOD, )
)
Defendant-Appellant. )

Before: SILER, ROGERS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

Mark Hazelwood appeals his conviction and sentence on charges of conspiracy to commit

mail and wire fraud, wire fraud, and witness tampering. His motion for release on bail pending

appeal was granted on November 13, 2018, “subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as

the district court may fix in its discretion.” One of those terms, fixed by the district court on

November 20, 2018, is that Hazelwood remain confined to his home. Hazelwood objects to home

confinement and “asks this court to reverse and remand with instructions to remove home

confinement as a condition of release pending appeal or, in the alternative, to permit [him] to leave

his home from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily.” The government opposes the motion. Hazelwood replies.

“The Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b), creates a presumption against release pending

appeal.” United States v. Chilingirian, 280 F.3d 704, 709 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v.

Vance, 851 F.2d 166, 168 (6th Cir. 1988)). If the judicial officer finds that the statutory criteria

for release in § 3143(b)(1) is satisfied, “such judicial officer shall order the release of the person
 Case: 18-6023 Document: 30-2 Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 2 (3 of 4)
No. 18-6023
-2-

in accordance with section 3142(b) or (c) of this title[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1). Under § 3142(b),

a defendant may be released on his personal recognizance or an unsecured appearance bond. But

if the judicial officer determines that the release described in subsection (b) will not reasonably

assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or

the community, the judicial officer shall order the release of the person “subject to the least

restrictive further condition or combination of conditions[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). The

district court also “may at any time amend the order to impose additional or different conditions

of release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3).

We review a district court’s factual findings concerning release for clear error and review

its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Veloz-Alonso, 910 F.3d 266, 268 (6th Cir. 2018);

United States v. Christman, 596 F.3d 870, 870 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Hazime, 762 F.2d

34, 37 (6th Cir. 1985). Hazelwood’s compliance with the terms of his pretrial release does not

negate the district court’s finding he has the means, the ability, and the travel connections to flee.

“[T]rial courts . . . are the superior tribunal for the kind of information-gathering which a sound

foundation for a bail ruling almost inevitably requires.” United States v. Krzyske, 857 F.2d 1089,

1091 (6th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Sullivan, 631 F. Supp. 1539 (E.D. Penn. 1986)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). And because we review the district court’s legal

conclusions de novo, we need not speculate on whether it applied an overly restrictive or incorrect

standard. So long as we apply the correct standard and reach the same conclusion based on the

same facts, any error on the part of the district court is harmless. See United States v. Deppish,

554 F. App’x753, 755 (10th Cir. 2014). Hazelwood has been sentenced to a 150-month term of

incarceration. “[A] defendant who knows to a certainty that he will be spending time in prison has

a greater incentive to flee than a defendant who, prior to conviction or sentencing, may be pinning
 Case: 18-6023 Document: 30-2 Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 3 (4 of 4)
No. 18-6023
-3-

his hopes on acquittal or leniency.” United States v. Villines, 32 F.3d 569 (Table), 1994 WL

378243, at *3 (6th Cir. 1994). We conclude that home confinement is the least restrictive means

of assuring Hazelwood’s appearance as required.

Hazelwood’s motion to review and modify the conditions of release pending appeal is

DENIED.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk