United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
case came before the Court on August 7, 2019 for a
preliminary hearing and detention hearing to determine the
Defendant's release status pending her revocation hearing
before Chief District Judge Reeves. Assistant United States
Attorney William Roach appeared on behalf of the Government.
Attorney Jonathan Moffatt represented the Defendant, who was
also present. The Government asked the Court to detain the
Defendant pending her revocation hearing on September 9,
2019, arguing that she is a danger to the community. The
Government relied upon the allegations in the Petition [Doc.
643] and the testimony of U.S. Probation Officer Nick
Dongarra. The Defendant sought release pending her revocation
hearing. She proposed that she be released under the
imposition of additional conditions, including house arrest
and increased drug testing.
the hearing, the Court found that probable cause was
established to demonstrate that Defendant committed the
alleged violations of her conditions of supervised release.
With regard to detention, the Court typically orders pretrial
detention of a defendant only if it finds no condition or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
appearance of the defendant and the safety of any person or
the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). With respect to the
release or detention of persons appearing for an alleged
violation of probation or supervised release, the Court shall
order that the defendant be detained unless it finds by clear
and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to
flee or pose a danger to the safety of others or the
community if released. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(6); see
also 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a). The defendant bears the
burden of showing that she will not flee or pose a danger to
others or the community. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(6).
Court has considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(g) and finds that they weigh in favor of
detention. See also United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d
939 (6th Cir. 2010). The nature and circumstances of the
violations alleged in this case involve controlled
substances, specifically, methamphetamine. See 18
U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1). Defendant was arrested on July 4,
2019 and charged with the Manufacture, Delivery, Sale, or
Possession of Methamphetamines, in violation of T.C.A. §
39-17-434, a class B felony. Significantly, Defendant's
sentence resulting in the period of supervised release was
for the Conspiracy to Manufacture Methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). Based
upon this testimony, the Court finds the weight of the
evidence of the Defendant's dangerousness to be great. 18
U.S.C. § 3142(g)(2); see Stone, 608 F.3d at 948
(observing that factor (g)(2) “goes to the weight of
the evidence of dangerousness, not the weight of the evidence
of the defendant's guilt”).
third factor focuses on the Defendant's history and
characteristics. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3).
The Court observes that an ambiguity arose during the
detention hearing regarding whether the Defendant has a
stable place to live. Further, the Defendant is alleged to
have committed multiple violations of her supervised release,
including several unrelated misdemeanor state charges and the
failure to participate in mental health treatment. Lastly,
the Court finds that the Defendant was on federal supervised
release at the time she committed each of the alleged
violations, facts which also support detention. See
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(B).
final factor looks to the nature and seriousness of the
danger that would be posed by the Defendant's release.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(4). The Court found
that probable cause was established that Defendant possessed
methamphetamine, which is especially relevant due to the
Defendant's previous federal conviction. The acquisition
and distribution of controlled substances indicates the
Defendant's involvement in drug trafficking. See
United States v. Hernandez, 2002 WL 1377911, *2 (E.D.
Tenn. Feb. 27, 2002) (Edgar, J.) (holding that drug
trafficking is inherently dangerous).
Defendant has failed to carry her burden of showing that she
is not a danger to the community. The Defendant has also
failed to show that release on her prior conditions or any
conditions would reasonably assure the safety of the
community. Accordingly, the Court concludes that no condition
or combination of conditions of release exist that could
reasonably assure the safety of the community, and therefore,
the Defendant is ORDERED DETAINED pending
her revocation hearing.
Defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General
or his designated representative for confinement in a
correction facility separate, to the extent practicable, from
persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in
custody pending appeal. The Defendant shall be afforded a
reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense
counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on
request of an attorney for the government, the person in
charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the
Defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an
appearance in connection with a court proceeding.