OPINION AND ORDER
EDMUND A. SARGUS, Jr., Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the unopposed Motion for Transportation filed by Defendant, Wilver A. Urias. (ECF No. 38.) In his Motion, Mr. Urias "requests this Court order the U.S. Marshals to arrange for his noncustodial transportation or the fare for such transportation to 85 Marconi, Blvd., Columbus, Ohio 43215" for a scheduled appearance before this Court on July 6, 2017. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
On December 14, 2016, a complaint was filed, charging Mr. Urias with Conspiracy to Possess with the Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, in violation is 21 USC § 841(a)(1) and 846. Mr. Urias was released that same day on Conditions of Release permitting him to return to Arizona.
On January 12, 2017, an Indictment was filed, charging Mr. Urias with Conspiracy to Distribute 1,000 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin, in violation of 21 USC § 841(a)(1) and 846. On January 27, 2017, defense counsel entered a not guilty plea on behalf of Mr. Urias.
The parties have since entered into a plea agreement. This matter is scheduled for a change of plea hearing on Thursday, July 6, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. (ECF No. 40.) Mr. Urias has provided a current financial affidavit for in camera review, which he contends reflects his indigency and inability to "afford transportation from Phoenix, Arizona to Columbus Ohio." (Mot. at 2.)
Mr. Urias moves under 18 U.S.C. § 4285, which provides:
Thus, a court may order the United States Marshal to arrange for noncustodial transportation or provide the fare for same for a defendant released on conditions in another district to travel to the prosecuting district for a court appearance if the court is satisfied that (1) such order would be in the interests of justice and (2) the defendant is not financially able to provide the transportation on his or her own. 18 U.S.C. § 4285). As our sister district court explains:
U.S. v. Alexander, 3:13-CR-146, 2015 WL 1457975, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2015)
"Section 4285 requires the Court to make `appropriate inquiry' into whether a defendant is financially able to transport him or herself to a required court appearance." U.S. v. Alexander, 2015 WL 1457975, at *2. In this regard, the Court observes that it found Mr. Urias to be indigent for purposes of the appointment of counsel at his initial appearance. (ECF No. 5.) "However, a defendant's inability to afford representation does not necessarily mean that the defendant is financially unable to pay transportation expenses to this district." Id. "Accordingly, the Court directed the Defendant to file ex parte a financial affidavit," which he has done. Upon review of Mr. Urias' financial affidavit, the Court finds that he is not financially able to provide the transportation on his own, and granting his request would be in the interests of justice.
For the reasons stated above, the Court