You are on page 1of 2

Case 1:14-cr-00248-PKC-RML Document 86 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 458

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.

ORDER

MICHAEL GRIMM,

14-CR-00248 (PKC)
Defendant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- X

Defendant Michael Grimm (“Grimm”) has moved to modify the conditions of his
pre-sentence release to permit him to travel to Europe for approximately one week in the spring
of 2015, for the purpose of satisfying the “responsibilities of [] potential employment” he is
currently pursuing.

(Dkt. 85.) Grimm’s current bond, inter alia, limits his travel to the

continental United States, and subjects him to random visits by the Probation Department and/or
regular reporting by Grimm to the Probation Department.
The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion.

On December 23, 2014, Grimm pled guilty to

aiding and abetting the preparation of a fraudulent tax return in 2009 for his then-business,
Granny Sayz, LLC, d/b/a “Healthalicious.” The Court advised Grimm during the plea
proceeding that he faced a potential maximum term of imprisonment of up to three years.

In

addition, Grimm’s guilty plea was entered pursuant to an agreement with the Government, in
which the Government estimated an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 24-30 months’
imprisonment.

Although Grimm did not stipulate to the Government’s estimate, he is certainly

aware of the possibility that he may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment in this case.
Grimm is scheduled to be sentenced on June 8, 2015.

Case 1:14-cr-00248-PKC-RML Document 86 Filed 03/05/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 459
While Grimm’s incentive to flee arguably will be no greater in the spring than it is now,
his opportunity to do so and to travel even further to a jurisdiction where he can avoid
extradition, would surely be enhanced if he is permitted to leave the United States for a week.
Even though Grimm has posted his home as security for his pre-sentence release bond, the Court
does not find that the loss of that property provides sufficient suasion if Grimm decides to leave
the United States to avoid a possible prison term.
not need a house in the United States.

Obviously, if Grimm chose to flee, he would

Furthermore, the Court does not find the reason for

Grimm’s motion, i.e., to qualify for a potential job opportunity, sufficient to justify lifting the
travel restriction.

While Grimm is certainly entitled to seek future employment, his desire to

obtain a particular job does not trump the need to ensure his appearance for sentencing.

Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
March 3, 2015
/s/
PAMELA K. CHEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE