United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
OPINION AND ORDER
K. CALDWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the defendant Fnu
Sadiqullah's motion (DE 55) to revoke the magistrate
judge's detention order.
is charged with one count of conspiring to kidnap certain
individuals for ransom in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1201(c) and one count of conspiring to use interstate
facilities in the commission of a murder for hire in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958.
government moved that he be detained pending trial. Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1), a defendant must be detained
pending trial if, after a hearing, a judicial officer finds
that no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure his appearance at future court proceedings
and the public safety.
magistrate judge conducted a detention hearing and determined
that the government has presented clear and convincing
evidence that Sadiqullah poses a danger to others.
Accordingly, the magistrate judge ordered that he be detained
pending trial. Sadiqullah then filed this motion, asking the
Court to revoke the magistrate judge's detention order.
Court will conduct a de novo review of the
magistrate judge's detention order. The statute providing
for review of the magistrate judge's detention order does
not specifically require that the Court conduct an additional
hearing. 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). In his motion, Sadiqullah
does not request a hearing, and he does not rely on or
explain evidence not already in the record that he would
proffer at a hearing in support of the motion to revoke the
detention order. Accordingly, a second detention hearing is
not necessary. See United States v. Gaviria, 828
F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir.1987); United States v.
Jones, No. 12:CR-105, 2012 WL 6737784, at * 1, n.1 (D. Conn.
2012); United States v. Burks, 141 F.Supp.2d 1283,
1285 (D. Kan. 2001);United States v. Alonso, 832
F.Supp. 503, 504 (D. Puerto Rico 1993); United States v.
Bergner, 800 F.Supp. 659, 661 (N.D.Ind.1992).
resolving this motion, the Court will rely on the affidavits
filed in support of the criminal complaints in this matter,
the indictment, the Pretrial Services Report prepared by the
U.S. Probation Office, the transcript of the detention
hearing, and the pleadings submitted by the parties.
is appropriate if the government proves by a preponderance of
the evidence that the defendant is a flight risk or if it
proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant
poses a danger to the public or any person. United States
v. Hinton, 113 Fed.Appx. 76, 77 (6th Cir. 2004).
making this determination, the court is to consider
“the available information” on the following
factors: the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
including whether the offense is a crime of violence; the
weight of the evidence against the person; the history and
characteristics of the person; and the nature and seriousness
of the danger to any person or the community posed by the
person's release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
the nature and circumstances of the offenses at issue here,
conspiracy to commit murder for hire and to kidnap are both
serious charges. The murder-for-hire charge carries a
possible prison term of 10 years; the kidnapping charge
carries a maximum life sentence. Further, both are
“crimes of violence.” The Bail Reform Act defines
a crime of violence as “an offense that has as an
element of the offense the use, attempted use, or threatened
use of physical force against the person or property of
another, ” or “any other offense that is a felony
and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that
physical force against the person or property of another may
be used in the course of committing the offense.” 18
U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4)(A), (B). Thus, this factor weights
in favor of detention.
the weight of the evidence against Sadiqullah, the Court must
weigh the evidence regarding the danger Sadiqullah poses to
the public or any person, not the evidence of his guilt.
United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 948 (6th Cir.
2010). In weighing the evidence on this issue, the Court will
consider Sadiqullah's personal history and
characteristics and the nature and seriousness of any danger
to any person or the community posed by his release.
regarding any danger posed by Sadiqullah is derived largely
from the affidavit submitted by Detective William J. Jackson,
which was filed in support of the criminal complaint against
Sadiqullah, and by the testimony of Detective Jackson at the
detention hearing. In his affidavit, Jackson identifies
himself as a deputy U.S. Marshal with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and as a detective with the University of
Kentucky Police Department. At the detention hearing,
Detective Jackson explained that he has been assigned to an
FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. (DE 20, Tr. at 12-13.)
affidavit and in his testimony at the detention hearing,
Detective Jackson recounted the contents of three recorded
conversations between co-defendant Mahmoud Shalash and a
confidential source. Sadiqullah was also present for one of
first recording was of a meeting that occurred on March 12,
2019 at the Days Motel in Lexington between Shalash and the
source. Detective Jackson testified that Shalash owns the
Days Motel and that Shalash ...