DECISION AND ORDERI. INTRODUCTION Defendant Sheldon Hurley (“Defendant”) is charged in a two-count indictment (“Indictment”) with conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1349, and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1956(h). (Dkt. 1). The Indictment was returned on August 6, 2014, and relates to an alleged scheme occurring between in or about May 2007 and in or about July 2011. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Revoke or Amend an Order of Detention (“Motion to Revoke”) (Dkt. 25), challenging the Order of Detention issued by the Honorable H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, on January 16, 2019 (Dkt. 24).Although the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Defendant presents a risk of flight, the Court finds that there are conditions that reasonably will assure his presence if released. As a result, the Magistrate Judge’s Order of Detention is reversed. The Court directs that Defendant be released pending trial in this matter upon execution of an Order Setting Conditions of Release with the following conditions:1. Defendant shall post a twenty thousand-dollar ($20,000) cash bond fully secured by cash deposited with the Clerk of the Court.2. Defendant shall not commit any offense in violation of federal, state, or local law while on release in this case.3. Defendant shall cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample if the collection is authorized by 42 U.S.C. §14135a.4. Defendant shall immediately advise the Court, defense counsel, the U.S. Attorney, and the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services Office (“USPO”) in writing before any change in address or telephone number.5. Defendant shall appear at all proceedings as required and shall surrender for service of any sentence imposed as directed. Defendant must appear at any appearances scheduled before the United States Magistrate Judge. Defendant must also appear at any appearances scheduled by the undersigned, including but not limited to a status conference that is hereby scheduled before the undersigned on Thursday, April 4, 2019, at 12:00 PM, at the United States Courthouse, 2 Niagara Square, Buffalo, New York.6. Defendant shall report by telephone on a weekly basis to the USPO.7. Defendant shall report within 72 hours, to the USPO any contact with any law enforcement personnel, including but not limited to any arrest, questioning, or traffic stop.8. Defendant shall execute an agreement to waive extradition.1Upon Defendant’s ability to satisfy the above conditions, he is directed to appear before Judge Schroeder or the duty United States Magistrate Judge for release consistent with this Decision and Order.II. PROCEDURAL HISTORYAlthough Defendant was indicted on August 6, 2014, he was not arraigned until January 15, 2019. (Dkt. 22). During the intervening almost four and one-half years, Defendant resided in Canada, and the Government pursued extradition proceedings. (Dkt. 30 at 2). According to Defendant, who is a Canadian citizen, it was not until 2018, that he became aware of this matter, and before the extradition proceedings were concluded in Canada, he agreed to surrender himself to authorities. (Dkt. 25 at 13). Thirty-two defendants were indicted in a related case, United States v. Offor, No. 1:12-CR-00183, Dkt. 1 (W.D.N.Y. June 8, 2012), and a single defendant was indicted in another related case, United States v. Hurst; No. 1:12-CR-00376, Dkt. 15 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2013), all of whom with the exception of the lead defendant in Offor have either been convicted by plea and sentenced2 or dismissed on motion by the Government.At his arraignment on January 15, 2019, the Government moved for detention and Judge Schroeder granted the request, finding that Defendant presented a risk of flight and no terms and conditions would reasonably assure Defendant’s appearance at future proceedings. (Dkt. 24; Dkt. 29 at 11-13). Defendant filed his Motion to Revoke on January 22, 2019. (Dkt. 25). The following day, the matter was transferred to the undersigned by the previously assigned District Judge (Dkt. 26), and an appearance was scheduled for February 14, 2019 (Dkt. 28). The Government filed a memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Revoke on February 4, 2019. (Dkt. 30). The matter was heard before the undersigned on February 14, 2019, at which time the Court advised that it would grant the Motion to Revoke with a written decision to follow. (Dkt. 31).III. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELEASE FROM CUSTODYThe basis for the Government’s request for detention is flight — there is no suggestion that Defendant should be detained because he presents a risk of danger to others or the community. The underlying crimes alleged in the Indictment are financial crimes, related to an alleged scheme by Defendant and others dating back almost a decade to defraud loan applicants and to obtain money and property from loan applicants by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises.The Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. §§3141 et seq., authorizes and sets forth the procedures for the release or detention of a person pending trial, sentence, and appeal. The procedures and standards for release or detention of a person such as Defendant pending trial are set forth at 18 U.S.C. §3142. United States v. Vasquez, 113 F.3d 383, 388 (2d Cir. 1997). A defendant awaiting trial must be released unless the release will present a risk of flight or dangerousness, or both, and no set of conditions can reasonably eliminate those risks. See 18 U.S.C. §3142.The factors that a court must consider in making this determination include the following: (1) the nature and circumstances of the charged offenses; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person, including such matters as the person’s family ties, employment history, length of residence in the community, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and (4) the nature and seriousness of any risk of danger if the person is released. See 18 U.S.C. §3142(g); see also United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011).In reviewing a detention order of a magistrate judge, a district judge should not simply defer to the judgment of the magistrate judge, but rather must reach her own independent conclusions. United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1985). “When making its de novo review, the district court may rely on the record of the proceedings before the magistrate judge and may also accept additional evidence.” United States v. Marra, 165 F. Supp. 2d 478, 481 (W.D.N.Y. 2001), aff’d, 21 F. App’x 66 (2d Cir. 2001).There is a two-step inquiry with respect to risk of flight:First, the court must make a finding as to whether the defendant presents a risk of flight if not detained.Second, if the court finds that a defendant is likely to flee, then the court must proceed to the second step of the inquiry, namely, whether there are conditions or a combination of conditions which reasonably will assure the presence of the defendant at trial if he is released.United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 194-95 (2d Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).In support of its position that Defendant presents a risk of flight, the Government submits: (1) Defendant is a citizen of Canada with no legal status in the United States and no ties to this country; (2) Defendant opposed extradition and only surrendered himself when the extradition proceedings were near completion and Defendant’s extradition was imminent; (3) Although many of the defendants in the related cases were given probationary sentences, Defendant played a more significant role in the scheme acting as a recruiter in the scheme to defraud, not merely a courier; and (4) Defendant faces a maximum punishment of 40 years imprisonment, with an anticipated guideline range of 63 to 78 months imprisonment if convicted of both counts in the Indictment. (See Dkt. 30).Defendant counters that Defendant is 39 years old; he has resided in Ontario, Canada his entire life; he currently resides in Markham, Ontario, at a home that he has rented for eight years with his wife and two daughters (age 13 and 9); his parents and two sisters also live in Markham; and he has operated his own renovation business for approximately four years. (Dkt. 25 at
