Jamar Scott v. United States

are: bl LOVieWer a. dependant be svhjecVeA Vo preVrioA debenVlon uokere, oV We \vn\WoA appeovrancet Vine &ovemnnenV requested deVenVon uoWoiA \deWftyn<^ a sVaVuVora ground under I? U.&G § 3H z(^, ana We judi cio<: officer did nod fOahe dhe dhresVaeAA dedermiinaAion fhocV +lne CASe involved A Serious irisV. of1 •pJiahd oy obsVrocfion necessary do audhor'rz.e a dedendion hearing under 5 3lH2.(rYi). Z) WheVPier; Ih deferrnmmci kwhedher A dedendion proceeding uoas Cohdocded pursuant bo" § 3 m2.fr), a. coimd maa disregard dbe Combined cdfech cd ddxe absence of a dhreshcM S 3W2,(d) d<terrnina.dior) Oind <x <sua spont-e. Cobdinuance o? dhe detebtiob htaring dhad neitb-er part a 'recpJ-esVed• 3^) UObedber permidbm ex w\obon -per rev^vJ oV predriftA cxe-VtnYion do iremain Ubdecided wr approyimodeliA dhree YvxonWiS is Cob5\sVcnV uoidn I? U.S-C. 5 3145(b), UiViich Commands dViad buch (X rncdioh dsboAi be determined prorofdlu?'