Close this search box.

Max Hardcore Must Remain in Prison Pending Appeal

Judge Bucklew issued an unsurprising order, Paul Little, a/k/a Max Hardcore, must remain in prison rather than being able to remain free on bond pending the resolution of his appeal.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1), a person convicted of a federal crime is eligible for release pending appeal if he can show by clear and convincing evidence that he is unlikely to flee or pose a danger to others, and that the appeal:

. . . raises a substantial question of law likely to result in—
(I) reversal,
(ii) an order for a new trial,
(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or
(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process. (Op. at 2)

Judge Bucklew determined that none of the seven reasons given by Little would be likely to result in a reversal.

Defendant claims that the seven issues he intends to raise on appeal are ones that “the court of appeals may find sufficiently compelling to overturn Little’s conviction.” (Doc. No. 210, p. 4.) While this may be true, it is inapposite. A defendant cannot gain relief under § 3143 by merely showing that a court of appeals may choose to overturn a defendant’s conviction. Rather, one must show that drastic relief is likely to be granted by the appeals court. Defendant’s Motion does not state, nor does it demonstrate, that Mr. Little’s claims meet such a compelling standard. (Op. at 2)

Given that most of the reasons offered were previously raised to Judge Bucklew, and she already ruled against Little on all of them, it is unsurprising that she would stick to her guns and say that it is unlikely that she could be wrong.

I wonder if Judge Bucklew is a Spin Doctors fan.

Skip to content