We Are Improving!

We hope that you'll find our new look appealing and the site easier to navigate than before. Please pardon any 404's that you may see, we're trying to tidy those up!  Should you find yourself on a 404 page please use the search feature in the navigation bar.  

Tuesday, 26 January 2016 16:35

Lynch's request for release to settle fed debt denied

Written by
Rate this item
(1 Vote)

A Hollister man's request to take care of his business affairs through release before facing federal sentencing in a drug case was rejected this month by a United States magistrate judge, according to court records.

Randy Lynch, who was arrested in July and originally scheduled to be sentenced this month for conspiracy to distribute more than 5 kilos of powdered cocaine, will not face sentencing until the court's March 8 term in Greenville.

His attorney asked in a motion that Lynch be allowed release to raise the $381,550 he agreed to forfeit to the government as part of the plea.

The plea agreement struck gives Lynch the opportunity to sell assets to raise the funds needed to pay the forfeiture debt. If the $381,550 is not paid in a timely fashion, the government will have the burden of foreclosing on Lynch's shop and salvage yard and selling them to satisfy the debt.

Said the motion: “It is in the best interest of both Randy and the government for Randy to sell property at full, fair market value in order to pay the asset forfeiture debt. Randy’s wife … is willing to assist him but lacks the experience and knowledge to be able to sell the salvage yard and its scrap cars in a manner that is commercially reasonable.”

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank wrote in an order filed earlier this month the court concludes, “ … Defendant has not met his burden to show that there are exceptional reasons why his detention would not be appropriate. The reason cited for defendant’s release amounts to a claim of financial hardship. While the court is cognizant of the hardships that detention bears upon a defendant and his family, such hardships are common to nearly every defendant and, therefore, are not considered exceptional reasons for purposes of (the case).”

Read 7970 times