Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Shiraishi

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

July 10, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
GORDON SHIRAISHI, 05 Defendant.

          ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT GORDON SHIRAISHI'S MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS, ECF NO. 256

          Michael Seabright Chief United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On June 14, 2018, Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi entered an Order denying Defendant Gordon Shiraishi's (“Defendant”) Motion for a Bill of Particulars (“June 14 Order”). ECF No. 256. On June 28, 2018, Defendant filed an appeal to this court. ECF No. 258.

         For the reasons discussed below, the court AFFIRMS the June 14 Order.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(a), and Criminal Local Rule 57.3(b), a district judge may set aside a magistrate judge's nondispositive order, including a motion for a bill of particulars, if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v. Tirado, 2018 WL 1806056, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 16, 2018); United States v. Orrock, 2017 WL 6421328, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 14, 2017); United States v. Hee, 2015 WL 3440047, at *1 (D. Haw. May 28, 2015).

         The threshold of the “clearly erroneous” test is high and significantly deferential. “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); United States v. Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d 942, 959 (9th Cir. 2017).

         III. BACKGROUND

         On April 17, 2018, Defendant filed his Motion for Bill of Particulars, seeking: (1) the identity of all alleged co-conspirators as to count 1; and (2) the overt acts committed by Defendant, along with the date that he entered the conspiracy, as to counts 1, 6, and 8.[1] ECF No. 204. The United States filed an opposition on April 30, 2018, ECF No. 222, and a hearing was held on June 13, 2018. ECF No. 255. The June 14 Order denied the motion, finding that Defendant has been adequately advised of the charges against him, and that the United States has provided full discovery. June 14 Order at 2.

         Defendant filed a timely appeal to this court, and the United States filed a reply on July 9, 2018. ECF Nos. 258, 261.[2] Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing.

         IV. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f) provides for a bill of particulars:

The court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars. The defendant may move for a bill of particulars before or within 14 days after arraignment or at a later time if the court permits. The government may amend a bill of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.