United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. TEETER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jerry Doby is charged with failure to register, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). After a detention hearing, the
magistrate judge released him on conditions including
electronic monitoring and curfew as required by the Adam
Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (“Adam
Walsh Act”). In the instant motion, Mr. Doby challenges
the constitutionality of these mandatory conditions, arguing
that they violate the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and
the Eighth Amendment Excessive Bail Clause. Doc. 24. Because
this motion is not properly before it, the Court denies the
motion and does not address Mr. Doby's constitutional
2018, the government filed an indictment charging Mr. Doby
with failure to register as required by 18 U.S.C. §
2250(a). For persons charged under that section, the Adam
Walsh Act mandates that pretrial release conditions include
electronic monitoring and curfew. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(c)(1)(B). At the July 3, 2018 detention hearing,
Magistrate Judge Gary Sebelius imposed those two conditions,
among others. Mr. Doby made no objection to these two
conditions. Over four months later, on November 7, 2018, Mr.
Doby filed the instant motion, arguing that these mandatory
conditions violate the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and
the Eighth Amendment Excessive Bail Clause.
Court analyzes whether Mr. Doby's motion is properly
before it. The Bail Reform Act of 1984 generally provides two
avenues through which a party may seek modification of a
pretrial release order before review on appeal by a court of
appeals: (1) review of a release order under 18 U.S.C. §
3145(a), and (2) a motion to amend under 18 U.S.C. §
3142(f). United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610,
614 (10th Cir. 2003). The Court analyzes each avenue to
determine whether Mr. Doby's motion is procedurally
The First Avenue: Review of a Release Order under 18 U.S.C.
first avenue is review of a release order under §
3145(a), which governs district court review of detention or
release orders entered by magistrate judges. Section 3145(a)
(a) Review of a release order. If a person is ordered
released by a magistrate judge, or by a person other than a
judge of a court having original jurisdiction over the
offense and other than a Federal appellate court- . . . .
(2) the person may file, with the court having original
jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for amendment of the
conditions of release.
18 U.S.C. § 3145(a).
this section does not specify a time limit, Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 59(a), which governs district court review
of a magistrate judge's order, contains both a time limit
and a waiver provision. Rule 59(a) states in relevant part:
A party may serve and file objections to the [magistrate
judge's] order within 14 days after being served with a
copy of a written order or after the oral order is stated on
the record, or at some other time the court sets. The
district judge must consider timely objections and modify or
set aside any part of the order that is contrary to law or