MEMORANDUM & ORDER
WILLIAM D. STIEHL, District Judge.
Before the Court is defendant's third motion for reconsideration of the Order of Detention (Doc. 43). The Court heard oral argument on the motion at the time that the defendant entered a plea of guilty. Upon review of the record, consideration of the arguments of counsel, including the government's opposition to the motion and the opposition of the United States Probation Office, the Court DENIES defendant's motion to be released on bail pending sentencing.
The defendant was ordered detained by Magistrate Judge Wilkerson after considering the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §3142. The defendant asserts that he has, since the time of the Court's Order of Detention, secured a new housing plan and has employment offers in the St. Louis, Missouri, area. In addition, he has agreed to go on electronic monitoring.
The Court has engaged in a de novo review of the pre-trial detention order, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). The Court specifically notes that the defendant has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The stipulation of facts provides that the defendant distributed at least 20 pounds of marijuana, and that he engaged in a financial transaction affecting interstate commerce intending to conceal that the transaction involved the drug-related nature of the proceeds derived from the distribution of marijuana.
Upon review of the record, the Court FINDS that no condition or combination of conditions exist which would reasonably assure the safety of the community and that the defendant's continued detention pending sentencing is appropriate. The defendant was engaged in a large scale marijuana operation with others; he fronted marijuana to a co-conspirator who would distribute and sell it in the Southern District of Illinois, and the conspiracy involved a substantial quantity of marijuana which was distributed in the Eastern District of Missouri and the Southern District of Illinois. In addition, the defendant has admitted to engaging in illegal financial transactions to conceal the proceeds of this conspiracy.
In light of the above, the Court FINDS that defendant's request for release from custody must therefore be DENIED (Doc. 43) and the defendant shall remain in ...