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. Redmond

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division

March 5, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
DARA BRIANN REDMOND, Defendant.

          ORDER

          C.J. Williams United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Motion for Review of Detention Order, filed on February 18, 2019. (Doc. 18). The government timely filed a resistance. (Doc. 19). For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.

         II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

         On February 5, 2019, a grand jury returned an indictment charging defendant with: conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1); one count of distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(B) (Count 2); an addition count of distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 841(b)(1)(B) (Count 3); and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A) (Count 4). On February 8, 2019, defendant appeared before the Honorable Mark A. Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge, for an initial appearance and arraignment. On February 12, 2019, defendant appeared before Judge Roberts for a detention hearing. Defendant appeared in court with her attorney, Chad Frese. Assistant United States Attorney Emily Nydle represented the government. At the hearing, Judge Roberts ordered Defendant detained, and he entered an order to that effect on February 13, 2019. (Docs. 16 & 17).

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A motion for revocation of a detention order is governed by 18 U.S.C. Section 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 Section 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 a defendant 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). 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). In contrast, “[t]he 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).

         IV. ANALYSIS

         In the motion for review, defendant asserts that Judge Roberts erred in finding that defendant poses a risk of flight and a danger to the community. (Doc. 18, at 1.) After conducting a de novo review of the record, including the Pretrial Services Report (Doc. 13) and the transcript of the detention hearing (Doc. 20), the Court finds that, for the reasons that follow, detention is appropriate in this case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

         First, the court considers the nature and circumstances of the offense alleged, including whether the offense involved violence or a firearm. See id. § 3142(g)(1). Defendant is charged with multiple drug trafficking offenses. Defendant is alleged to have been selling multiple pounds of pure methamphetamine per month. (See Doc. 20, at 9-10). Although defendant is not charged with any violent or firearm-related offenses, the sheer scale of the drug activity raises a concern about the danger she poses to the community. See United States v. Cantu, 935 F.2d 950, 952 (8th Cir. 1991) (“[W]e recognize the congressional determination that large scale drug trafficking is a serious danger to the community . . . .” (quoting United States v. Sazenski, 806 F.2d 846, 848 (8th Cir. 1986))). Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of detention. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1).

         Second, the court considers the weight of the evidence against defendant. See Id. § 3142(g)(2). At the hearing, Sergeant Steven Erceg of the Linn County Sheriff's Office testified that a confidential informant made two controlled purchases from defendant, at least one of which was video recorded, for a total of approximately three ounces of methamphetamine. (Doc. 20, at 5-7). Sergeant Erceg testified that he executed a search warrant at defendant's residence and discovered more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, a scale, a glass pipe, packaging materials, and nearly $5, 000 in cash. (Id., at 10-11). In a post-Miranda interview, defendant admitted she had been selling methamphetamine for at least one year, averaging one pound every other week and sometimes as much as six pounds per month. (Id., at 9-10). The evidence against defendant is strong, and, therefore, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of detention.

         Third, the court considers the history and characteristics of Defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3). Defendant has lived in Cedar Rapids for nearly her entire life, having resided out of state only for a few years in her early adulthood. (Doc. 13, at 1). Defendant has significant ties to the area as her parents, several siblings, and three children all reside in or around Cedar Rapids. (Id., at 1-2). Defendant's work history is inconsistent; she maintained a steady job from 2003 until 2012 but has worked only sporadically since then with significant lapses in her employment. (Id., at 2-3). Defendant has one prior instance of failing to appear for a court date, a sentencing on a misdemeanor in 2013. (Id., at 5). It appears, however, that the matter was quickly resolved as the warrant was recalled four days later and ...


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.