detention without a hearing offends the Due Process Clause. Young’s detention, however, has not yet reached that point. First, although “the sheer length of the proceedings is not alone determinative of reasonableness,” Debel, 2014 WL 1689042, at *5, courts in this Circuit have upheld detentions of significantly longer duration than Young’s, see, e.g., id. at *6 (eighteen months and “likely” to exceed two years); Orsino, 942 F.Supp.2d at 408-11 (fifteen months); Johnson v. Phillips, No. 10-CV-480 (HBS), 2010 WL 6512350, at *6-7 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2010) (seventeen months); Andreenko v. Holder, No. 09-CV-8535 (CM) (JCF), 2010 WL 2900363, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2010) (thirteen months). But see Gordon v. Shanahan, No. 15-CV-261 (JGK), 2015 WL 1176706, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2015) (<HOLDING>); Araujo-Cortes, 35 F.Supp.3d at 548 (same
holding that oregons procedure for appointment of temporary guardian for six months violated due process holding that eight months between charges and dismissal created inference of causal connection holding thirtyeight day preappearance detention violated due process holding that detention of approximately eight months violated due process holding that juvenile pretrial detention implicates due process rights