United States v. Joseph B. Montoya

ORDER

Former Senator Montoya’s counsel correctly sets forth the standard by which we must determine whether bail pending appeal shall be granted. The only pertinent question here is whether the appeal “raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in ... reversal”. 18 U.S.C. § 3143 (b). We have explained what is required for an appellant to prevail on that question in United States v. Handy, 761 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir.1985). As counsel correctly states:

As counsel also correctly points out:

Our difficulty with appellant’s request for bail lies in the application of the Handy rule to the issues on appeal — issues that counsel notes only summarily in the bail motion. In that motion, counsel states that “appellant intends to argue that the extortion and racketeering convictions were improper under United States v. Aguon, supra, 851 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir.1988) (en banc).” However, counsel does not tell us what the basis for the argument is. There is thus no way that we can evaluate whether the argument appellant intends to present is fairly debatable. Similarly, counsel tells us in the motion that “appellant intends to argue that the Government failed to prove the…