First, as recognized by the Defendant, both parties were given an opportunity to inform the Court of their respective proposed release conditions.

After considering the parties’ respective positions, the Court orally pronounced that pending his appeal, Defendant Lacey be placed on a curfew, and specified that “during the daytime hours he can engage in community services, church services, meeting with his counsel, health, mental health appointments and so on, but that during the evening hours I would suggest from 10:00 to at least 6:00 a.m. he is to be confined to his residence.” (Doc. 2269 at 13).

And that dependent on the mental health assessment, that he participate in a mental health treatment program as directed by his reviewing officer.” (Id.) In imposing these and the other related release conditions, including assessment for alcohol and/or substance use and firearms prohibitions, the Court considered the Defendant’s conviction, his pending retrial, and information gathered in the presentence report as to his mental, physical, and financial health.

Third, generally, the Court “will ordinarily deny a motion for consideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” See LRCiv 7.2.

Rather, he states that “[h]ad counsel understood that the Court intended to deprive Mr. Lacey of the ability to leave his home ... he would have, at the very least, made a record about why that condition has no support in the record.” (Doc. 2270 at 6).