Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Goldsmith

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division

September 27, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
DEON MARCELL GOLDSMITH, Defendant.

          ORDER

          LENDA R. READE JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

         I. INTRODUCTION

         The matter before the court is Defendant Deon Marcell Goldsmith's “Motion for Revocation or Amendment of Order” (“Motion”) (docket no. 108).

         II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On July 18, 2017, a grand jury returned an Indictment (docket no. 8) charging Defendant with one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846, and two counts of distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). See Indictment at 2-4. On July 20, 2017, Defendant appeared before United States Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams for an initial appearance and arraignment, at which time he pled not guilty. See July 20, 2017 Minute Entry (docket no. 43). On July 24, 2017, Defendant appeared before Judge Williams for a detention hearing. See July 24, 2017 Minute Entry (docket no. 57). Defendant appeared in court with his attorney, Stephen Swift. Assistant United States Attorneys Emily Nydle and Ravi Narayan represented the government. At the hearing, Judge Williams ordered Defendant detained, and he subsequently entered an order to that effect on July 25, 2017. See Order of Detention Pending Trial (docket no. 61).

         On August 14, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion for Review of Pretrial Detention (“Motion for Review”) (docket no. 87), seeking review of the July 25, 2017 Order of Detention Pending Trial. On August 21, 2017, the government filed a Resistance to the Motion for Review (docket no. 92). On August 28, 2017, Judge Williams held a hearing on the Motion for Review. See August 28, 2017 Minute Entry (docket no. 97). At the hearing, Judge Williams again ordered Defendant detained, and subsequently entered an Order to that effect on August 29, 2017. See Order Denying Motion for Review (docket no. 98). On September 12, 2017, Defendant filed the Motion. On September 19, 2017, the government filed a Resistance (docket no. 117). The matter is fully submitted and ready for decision.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A motion for revocation of a detention order is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), which provides:

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 determined promptly.

18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). The court reviews a § 3145(b) motion de novo. See United States v. Maull, 773 F.2d 1479, 1481 (8th Cir. 1985) (en banc). The court is required to detain defendants prior to trial if the court “finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the [defendant] as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). “The facts the [court] uses to support a finding . . . that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. § 3142(f). In contrast, a finding “that no condition or set of conditions . . . will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance” must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 891 (8th Cir.1985) (emphasis omitted).

         IV. ANALYSIS

         In the Motion, Defendant argues that Judge Williams erred in finding that Defendant is a flight risk and that he poses a danger to the community. See Brief in Support of Motion (docket no. 108-1) at 2-3. Defendant further claims that Judge Williams failed to properly consider the conditions which would assure Defendant's appearance at further proceedings and ensure the safety of the community. See id.

         After conducting a de novo review of the record, including the Pretrial Services Report (docket no. 52), the transcripts of the July 24, 2017 detention hearing (“Detention Hearing Transcript”) (docket no. 112) and the August 28, 2017 review hearing (“Review Hearing Transcript”) (docket no. 110), the court finds that Judge Williams's Order of Detention Pending Trial, Order Denying Detention Review and his statements at the detention and review hearings accurately and thoroughly set forth the facts and the law. Additionally, for the reasons that follow, the court finds that detention is appropriate in this case.

         Defendant was charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846, and two counts of distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). See Indictment at 2-4. These are “offense[s] for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(A); see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). There is probable cause to believe that Defendant committed these offenses and, thus, there is a “presum[ption] that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of [Defendant] as required and the safety of the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3); see Kaley v. United States, __U.S.__, __, 134 S.Ct. 1090, 1097 (2014) (“‘[A]n indictment fair upon its face, and returned by a properly constituted grand jury . . . ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.