USA v. Marseet

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
AKRAM MARSEET,
Defendant.
6:24-cr-6032 (BKS)
Appearances:
For the United States of America:
Joel L. Violanti
Acting United States Attorney
Everardo A. Rodriguez
Assistant United States Attorney
100 State Street, Suite 500
Rochester, New York 14614
Defendant pro se:
Akram Marseet
603979
Monroe County Jail
130 South Plymouth Avenue
Rochester, NY 14614
Standby Counsel for Defendant Akram Marseet:
David C. Pilato
Pilato Law, PLCC
30 West Broad Street, Suite 100
Rochester, NY 14614
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Defendant Akram Marseet is charged with threatening two United States judges in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 115(b)(4) as well as transmitting an
interstate threatening communication in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). (Dkt. No. 22). The
Case 6:24-cr-06032-BKS Document 99 Filed 02/25/25 Page 1 of 8

2
affidavit in support of the complaint details a threatening statement Defendant is alleged to have
made on a phone call with an Intake Clerk for the Western District of New York. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶
4–9).
The Government moved for detention at Defendant’s initial appearance in Denver,
Colorado on January 16, 2024, and Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak held a detention hearing
on January 19, 2024. (Case No. 1:24-mj-9, Dkt. Nos. 3, 8). At the conclusion of the hearing,
Magistrate Judge Varholak granted the Government’s motion and ordered that Defendant be
detained. (Dkt. No. 56-3, at 55–57). On November 25, 2024, Defendant moved for conditional
pretrial release. (Dkt. No. 52). The Court construed this as a motion to review the detention order
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). On January 14, 2025, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for
conditional pretrial release. (Dkt. No. 67).
Presently before the Court are Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file
objections to the Court’s decision, (Dkt. No. 84), Defendant’s memorandum outlining his
objections, (Dkt. No. 90), Defendant’s motion to seal exhibits supporting his memorandum,
(Dkt. No. 91), Defendant’s motion for an in-person evidentiary hearing regarding his objections,
(Dkt. No. 94), and Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the
Court’s decision, (Dkt. No. 96, at 3). The Court construes Defendant’s “objections” as a motion
for reconsideration of the Court’s bail decision. For the reasons stated below, the Court partially
grants Defendant’s motion to seal, denies Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, and denies
Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Bail Reform Act of 1984 authorizes and sets forth the procedures for pretrial
detention of a criminal defendant. See generally 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq. 18 U.S.C. § 3145,
which governs the review and appeal of a release or detention order, does not provide for
Case 6:24-cr-06032-BKS Document 99 Filed 02/25/25 Page 2 of 8

3
objections to such decisions. Neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Western
District of New York Local Rules provide for reconsideration, but such motions “have
traditionally been allowed within the Second Circuit.” See United States v. Yannotti, 457 F.
Supp. 2d 385, 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is
within the district court’s discretion. United States v. LeSane, No. 22-cr-110, 2023 WL 315268,
at *2, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9685, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2023)
Under § 3145(c), a defendant can appeal a detention order to the Second Circuit. See
United States v. Dai, 99 F.4th 136, 138 (2d Cir. 2024). However, a defendant’s notice of appeal
must be filed in the district court within fourteen days of the entry of either the judgment or the
order being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i); see United States v. Bao Deng Chen, 257 F.
Supp. 2d 656, 665 n.31 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (noting that any appeal of the decision denying bail
must be filed within the deadline under the rule). “Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good
cause, the district court may—before or after the time has expired, with or without motion and
notice—extend the time to file a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from the
expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(b).” Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Reconsideration
In a letter dated January 28, 2025, Defendant moved for a ten-day extension of time to
file objections to the decision denying bail. (Dkt. No. 84). The Court did not rule on this request.
In documents dated February 7, 2025, Defendant filed his objections to the decision denying bail
and requested an evidentiary hearing regarding his objections. (Dkt. Nos. 90, 94). The Court
retroactively grants Defendant’s motion for an extension, (Dkt. No. 84), and construes his
February 7, 2025 submissions as a timely motion for reconsideration.
Case 6:24-cr-06032-BKS Document 99 Filed 02/25/25 Page 3 of 8

4
“The major grounds justifying reconsideration are ‘an intervening change of controlling
law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.’” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)
(citation omitted). The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is “strict, and
reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling
decisions or data that the court overlooked[.]” Shrader v. CSX Transp., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir.
1995). “[A] motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to
relitigate an issue already decided.” Id.; See, e.g., United States v. Bush, No. 18-cr-907, 2021
WL 371782, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20603 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2021) (denying motion for
reconsideration of decision denying bail).
In the specific context of a detention order, a court may “reopen the detention hearing ‘at
any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the
movant at the time of the hearing’” so long as the new information “‘has a material bearing on
the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of
such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.’” United States v.
Ali, No. 12-cr-45, 2012 WL 2921642, at *3, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99202, at *9–10 (W.D.N.Y.
July 17, 2012) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)). This information must consist “of something
other than a defendant’s own evaluation of his character or the strength of the case against him:
truly changed circumstances, something unexpected, or a significant event.” United States v.
Malizio, No. 12-cr-125, 2013 WL 5653446, at *4, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148324, at *11
(W.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2013) (citation omitted). The Court construes Defendant’s submissions
liberally and interprets them to raise the strongest arguments they suggest. LeSane, 2023 WL
315268, at *3, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9685, at *6.
Case 6:24-cr-06032-BKS Document 99 Filed 02/25/25 Page 4 of 8

5
Even construing Defendant’s briefing liberally, Defendant has failed to provide a basis
for reconsideration or reopening the detention hearing. Defendant raises the same arguments
made in his briefing supporting his initial motion for conditional pretrial release, including that
the venue is conspiring against him, that the Government is withholding evidence, and that the
Government’s evidence is not credible. (See Dkt. Nos. 52, 65, 90). With the instant motion,
Defendant offers medical records and emails with his professors as “new evidence.” (See Dkt.
No. 90, at 4–9).1 However, these documents do “not offset all of the other information available
in this case.” See Ali, 2012 WL 2921642, at *4, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99202, at *12. In short,
there is nothing in Defendant’s ninety-nine pages of objections that “might reasonably be
expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court,” such as “an intervening change of
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” See Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257; Bush, 2021 WL 371782, at *1, 2021 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 20603, at *2 (citations omitted). Having considered Defendant’s submissions, the Court
has not found any basis to reconsider its determination that the Government has shown by clear
and convincing evidence that Defendant poses a danger to the safety of any other person and the
community, and that there are no set of conditions sufficient to reasonably mitigate these risks.
1 Defendant submitted five exhibits in support of his objections, and requested that each be sealed. (Dkt. No. 91). The
first and fourth exhibits are medical records, and the Court therefore directs that they are docketed under seal because
Defendant's privacy interest in his mental health and medical records outweighs the public interest in disclosure, under
both the First Amendment and the common-law right of access, and the sealing is narrowly tailored to serve those
interests. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga Cty., 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006). The second and third
exhibits are emails between Defendant and his professors at the Colorado School of Mines. Defendant has not stated
an interest that would support sealing exhibits two and three, especially in light of the fact that Defendant quotes the
emails in his briefing. (See Dkt. No. 90, at 7–9). The fifth exhibit is an excerpt from a filing Defendant submitted in
his civil case. A protective order is in place with respect to the filing, and under that protective order, the exhibit must
be filed under seal. (Case No. 6:20-cv-7096, Dkt. No. 244, ¶ 6). Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to seal is granted
in part and denied in part. The Clerk is respectfully directed to docket the exhibits, with the first, fourth, and fifth
exhibits being docketed under seal.
Case 6:24-cr-06032-BKS Document 99 Filed 02/25/25 Page 5 of 8

6
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motions, (Dkt. Nos. 90, 94), pertaining to his request
for reconsideration.
B. 	Extension of Due Date for Notice of Appeal
Defendant filed a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. (Dkt. No. 96,
at 3). Specifically, Defendant requested that the Government produce specific discovery, and that
after the production of such discovery, he be granted one week to file his notice of appeal. (Id. at
3–4). Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), a Defendant’s notice of appeal is due “within 14 days
after the later of: the entry of either the judgment or the order being appealed.” However, “[t]he
[Fed. R. App. P.] 4(b) clock stops when a party files a motion for reconsideration; that is, a
timely motion for reconsideration renders the judgment non-final for appeal purposes, and thus
tolls the time for appeal under [Fed. R. App. P.] 4(b).” United States v. Rodriguez, 892 F.2d 233,
235 (2d Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6, 8 (1976) (per curiam)). “Once the
district court denies the motion, the clock is reset to zero, and the full time for appeal ‘begins to
run anew from the date of the entry of the order disposing of the motion.’” Id. (citation omitted).
Accordingly, it appears that Defendant has fourteen days from the date of this decision to file a
notice of appeal.
Beyond that, pursuant to Fed. R. App. 4(b)(4), the Court can only extend the due date for
filing such notice “[u]pon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause” by thirty days from the
expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by the rule. The good cause standard “applies in
situations in which there is no fault—excusable or otherwise.” United States v. Darling, 706 F.
App’x 34, 35 (2d Cir. 2017). Here, the Government has documented discovery that it has
produced, (Dkt. Nos. 45, 68), and the Court has addressed Defendant’s complaints regarding
discovery at conferences on October 18, 2024, November 5, 2024, and January 13, 2025. The
Government has repeatedly told Defendant that there is no tape recording of the alleged threat.
Case 6:24-cr-06032-BKS Document 99 Filed 02/25/25 Page 6 of 8

7
Based on the Court’s familiarity with this record, and having reviewed the discovery that
Defendant now seeks as a basis for extending the time to appeal, the Court does not find good
cause to extend the due date.
The excusable neglect standard, which applies in situations in which there is fault, is an
equitable decision and requires district courts to consider: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the
non-movant; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact upon judicial proceedings; (3)
the reason for the delay, including whether it was in the reasonable control of the movant; and
(4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Darling, 706 F. App’x at 35–36 (citing Pioneer Inv.
Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Lts. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). Courts typically focus on
the third factor. Id. at 36. A party claiming excusable neglect will ordinarily lose, especially if
that party failed to follow the clear dictates of a court rule. Id. Here, Defendant has failed to
make any showing of excusable neglect warranting an extension of the time to appeal. And, to
the extent Defendant’s request rests on complaints regarding discovery, the Court notes that
Defendant has failed to comply with the Criminal Pretrial Order, which provides that the Court
“shall not hear a motion to compel discovery unless the attorney for the moving party files with
the Court, simultaneously with the filing of the moving papers, a notice stating that the moving
party has conferred and discussed in detail with the opposing party the issues between them in a
good faith effort to eliminate or reduce the area of controversy and to arrive at a mutually
satisfactory resolution.” (Dkt. No. 11, at 4). Accordingly, the Court declines to extend the due
date for filing a notice of appeal beyond the fourteen-day period from the date of this decision.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file objections to the
Court’s decision denying bail (Dkt. No. 84) is retroactively GRANTED; and it is further
Case 6:24-cr-06032-BKS Document 99 Filed 02/25/25 Page 7 of 8

8
ORDERED that Defendant’s motions for reconsideration (Dkt. Nos. 90, 94) are
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to seal (Dkt. No. 91) is GRANTED in part such
that the first, fourth, and fifth exhibits should be docketed under seal and otherwise DENIED;
and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal
(Dkt. No. 96) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2025
Syracuse, New York
Case 6:24-cr-06032-BKS Document 99 Filed 02/25/25 Page 8 of 8