United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RONNIE GREER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 24, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Clifton L.
Corker held a detention hearing for defendant Xiaorong You.
[Doc. 26]. The Magistrate Judge determined defendant should
be detained pending trial pursuant to the Bail Reform Act of
1984, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141, et seq. [Doc.
30]. Thereafter, defendant filed a “Notice of
Objections to Order of Detention Pending Trial, ” [Doc.
31], and the United States has responded, [Doc. 32]. The
defendant, through counsel, seeks a reversal of the
Magistrate Judge's decision to detain her pending trial.
For the reasons that follow, the Court overrules
defendant's objections to Magistrate Judge Corker's
detention order and defendant shall remain in custody pending
February 12, 2019, a grand jury returned an indictment in
this case charging defendant, alongside a co-defendant, with
one count of conspiracy to commit theft of trade secrets in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a)(5), one count of wire
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and seven counts
of theft of trade secrets in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1832(a)(3). [Doc. 3].
with the Court's local practice, the Magistrate Judge
presided over defendant's initial appearance,
arraignment, and detention hearing. The Magistrate Judge
determined detention was required in this case, and imposed
detention pending trial. [Doc. 30].
April 25, 2019 detention order, [Doc. 30], the Magistrate
Judge discussed defendant's risk of flight. The findings
in the detention order were based on testimony of the defense
witness, Linda Xu, defendant's adult daughter, and the
government's witness, Agent William Leckrone, an
investigator with the FBI Knoxville field office. [Doc. 27].
Defendant also submitted two character affidavits in support
of her position. [Docs. 20-1, 20-2]. Based on this evidence,
the Magistrate Judge found that defendant was a flight risk.
Magistrate Judge held that the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(g) leaned in favor of detention. [Doc. 30 at 7].
The Magistrate Judge found defendant's charges of
conspiracy to commit theft of trade secrets, wire fraud, and
theft of trade secrets supported detention. Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge determined that the underlying facts of the
charges included a substantial connection with a foreign
government and a foreign national, which weighed in favor of
detention. [Id. at 2-5].
Magistrate Judge also determined that § 3142(g)(2)
supported detention prior to trial. He discussed how the
weight of the evidence regarding defendant's risk of
flight was substantial, including defendant's extensive
connections to China, financial means to travel
internationally, and defendant's possession of a bag that
contained various foreign currencies, her passport, her
diploma, naturalization papers, and bank statements from a
bank in China. [Id. at 4-5].
the Magistrate Judge determined that defendant's history
and characteristics under § 3142(g)(3) favored
detention. Defendant has no familial or community ties to
East Tennessee, but has substantial connections to China.
Further, the Magistrate Judge determined that defendant's
financial ties to China, and her development of connections
within the Chinese government through being awarded
prestigious grant-like awards weighed in favor of pretrial
detention. The Magistrate Judge noted that detention is
further supported by the fact that defendant's contacts
are with China, a country that does not have an extradition
treaty with the United States. [Id. at 6].
the Magistrate Judge concluded: “[t]he Court finds that
no conditions of release or combination of conditions,
including considering the proposed conditions suggested by
Defendant, would reasonably assure her appearance as
required. Accordingly, the Court finds that she should be
detained pending trial.” [Id. at 7].
Defendant, through counsel, seeks review of the Magistrate
Judge order, [Id.], and the Court considers the
matter de novo.
of a detention order governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b),
If a person is ordered detained by a magistrate judge, or by
a person other than a judge of a court having original
jurisdiction over the offense and other than a Federal
appellate court, the person may file, with the court having
original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for
revocation or amendment of the order. The motion shall be
18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). This Court conducts a de
novo review of a Magistrate Judge's detention order.
See United States v. Villegas, No. 3:11-CR-28, 2011
WL 1135018, at *4 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 25, 2011); see also
United States v. Romans, No. 00-5456, 2000 WL 658042, at
*1 (6th Cir. May 9, 2000).
defendant should be detained without bond pending trial if a
“judicial officer finds that no condition or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
appearance of the person as required and the safety of any
other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. §
3142(e)(1). Generally, in order to be detained, the
government must establish a risk of flight by a preponderance
of the evidence or dangerousness to any other person or the
community by clear and convincing evidence. United
States v. Hinton, 113 Fed. App'x 76, 77 (6th Cir.
2004). See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(b).
“Pretrial detention can be ordered based on a judicial
finding of either substantial danger to the community or risk
of flight; only one is required.” United States v.
Hernandez, No. 1:02-CR-006, 2002 WL 1377911, at *3 (E.D.
Tenn. Feb. 27, 2002) (citing United States v.
Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 765 (7th Cir. 1985)). The Sixth