United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
N. Stivers, Judge.
matter is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for
Revocation of Detention Order and Request for Hearing (DN
58). For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion
Trey Alexander Gwathney-Law (“Gwathney-Law”) is
charged with (1) possession of a firearm not registered in
the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record in
violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d), 5871; (2)
knowingly making a firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§§ 5861(f), 5871; (3) attempted arson in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i); and (4) possession of a firearm
in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), (B)(ii). (Superseding Indictment
1-3, DN 17).
Magistrate Judge conducted a detention hearing on December 9,
2015. (Tr. 1, DN 56). At the hearing, Gwathney-Law suggested
that he should be released to live with his mother and
grandmother, with one of the two serving as a third-party
custodian. (See Tr. 4). Gwathney-Law also indicated
that he had no objection to GPS monitoring. (See Tr.
4-5). The United States requested an order detaining
Gwathney-Law pending trial on the ground that Gwathney-Law
posed a danger to the community. (Tr. 11).
considering the evidence and information presented, the
Magistrate Judge ordered that Gwathney-Law be detained.
(Detention Order, DN 24; Tr. 28). He found that there was
probable cause to believe that Gwathney-Law committed an
offense for which a maximum prison term of ten years or more
is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); that
Gwathney-Law failed to rebut the presumption in favor of
detention provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(B); and
that no condition or combination of conditions would
reasonably assure the safety of the community. (Detention
Order; Tr. 25-28).
Gwathney-Law moves the Court to revoke the detention order.
(Def.'s Mot. Revoke Detention Order & Req. Hr'g,
DN 58 [hereinafter Def.'s Mot.]). The United States has
responded to Gwathney-Law's motion. (Pl.'s Resp., DN
60). The matter is ripe for adjudication.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
magistrate judge orders pretrial detention, the detainee
“may file, with the court having original jurisdiction
over the offense, a motion for revocation or amendment of the
order.” 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). While the Sixth
Circuit has not adopted a specific standard under which a
magistrate judge's detention order should be reviewed,
this Court and others within the Sixth Circuit have used the
de novo standard. See, e.g., United
States v. Loveland, No. 3:11-CR-91, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 116049, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 7, 2011); United
States v. Goodwin, No. 3:15-CR-101-DJH, 2015 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 142930, at *5-6 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 21, 2015); United
States v. Watkins, No. 13-02-KSF, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
22123 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 19, 2013). Furthermore, this Court has
declined to hold new hearings when the moving party asked for
revocation based on the same evidence presented to the
magistrate judge. Loveland, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
116049, at *2-3; Goodwin, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
142930, at *5-6.
ruling on Gwathney-Law's motion, the Court must determine
whether a “condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the appearance of [Gwathney-Law] as
required and the safety of any other person and the
community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). If not, the
Court must uphold his detention. See id.
there is probable cause to believe Gwathney-Law committed an
offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), there is a rebuttable
presumption “that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of
[Gwathney-Law] as required and the safety of the
community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(B). “The
presumption of § 3142(e)(3) imposes only a burden of
production on the defendant, requiring the defendant to come
forward with evidence that he poses no danger to the
community or is a risk of flight.” Loveland,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116049, at *3. If Gwathney-Law
overcomes this presumption, the United States must prove by
clear and convincing evidence that no conditions will
reasonably assure Gwathney-Law's appearance or the safety
of the community. The Court considers several factors in
deciding whether to order detention. See 18 U.S.C.
is no need for a hearing on this motion. Neither Gwathney-Law
nor the government has put forth additional evidence or
information in support of detention or release. (See
Def.'s Mot; Pl.'s Resp.). Accordingly, the Court will
rely on the transcript of the proceeding conducted by the
Magistrate Judge in reviewing Gwathney-Law's motion.
reviewing the transcript, the Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that Gwathney-Law failed to overcome the
presumption in favor of detention provided by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(e)(3)(B) at the initial detention ...