United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jaqureay Adams is charged with Conspiracy to Distribute a
Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846;
Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(D) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and
Possession of a Semiautomatic Assault Weapon in Furtherance
of a Drug Trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
924(c)(1)(A) & (B)(I) and 2 in a second superseding
indictment filed in this district. See Dkt. No. 151.
arrest on the first superseding indictment, Adams had his
initial appearance on December 27, 2017. See Dkt.
No. 133. After a detention hearing on December 28, 2017, the
Court denied the government's motion for detention and
ordered Adams released subject to - and only once compliance
was confirmed with - certain conditions. See Dkt.
Nos. 139 & 140. The Court explained at the conclusion of
the hearing that
[w]e're here, back here today for a hearing on the
Government's motion for detention as to Jaqureay Adams,
charged by superseding indictment in this case with violating
two different drug offenses, a violation of 21 United States
Code Section 846 and 841(b)(1)(D), as well as a firearm in
furtherance of that drug trafficking offense, in violation of
18 United States Code Section 924(c).
The Government has moved for detention and has invoked, as is
its right, the so-called rebuttable presumption that provides
that, whereas here, a grand jury has indicted the defendant
and thereby found probable cause to believe that Mr. Adams
has committed a drug offense that carries with it at least a
10-year maximum sentence, that the Court is to presume there
is no combination of conditions that the Court could set to
reasonably assure Mr. Adams' appearance as required or
the safety of the community if he was to be released.
This requires Mr. Adams to come forward with some evidence to
rebut that presumption - that is, that suggests that there in
fact are conditions that could be set to reasonably assure
his appearance and the safety of the community - and then the
burden remains with the Government to ultimately prove its
motion if he comes forward with some evidence.
I've considered the testimony of Officer Schroeder, one
of the case agents, the report of Pretrial Services,
Government's Exhibits 1 through 7 that have been
admitted, which includes Government's Exhibit 6 that is
ten video clips that were shown here in court today. I've
considered all this in light of the factors that are set out
by the Bail Reform Act for consideration here that include
the nature and circumstances of the charged offense, the
apparent weight of the evidence against Mr. Adams, and his
history and characteristics.
Here, the evidence clearly shows by video Mr. Adams handling
large amounts of drugs and cash with a gun in his waistband
in the apartment where his codefendants are engaged in drug
trafficking that evidence shows consistently involves several
firearms and the brandishing of a firearm each time a
customer comes in, as well as showing Mr. Adams' own
Facebook page and posts supporting those same codefendants
after some of the arrests some months ago.
The evidence showed that Mr. Adams had access to an area of
the apartment where this conspiracy, this drug trafficking
conspiracy was taking place, where suppliers, not customers
of the drugs, were present. And the evidence also shows that
law enforcement has included Mr. Adams as a confirmed gang
member, along with his codefendants, and that he was known to
Irving Police Department for several years and is now facing
a long - a substantial prison sentence if he is convicted of
I do find Mr. Adams has come forward, though, with some
evidence to rebut the presumption as to each of these
matters. The evidence shows he has a concealed handgun
license [(“CHL”)] as well as a commercial
driver's license to allow him to drive trucks. He is
gainfully employed as a truck driver, including for FEMA in
hurricane relief for the last three months. In fact, the
evidence shows he was actually arrested going to the
Department of Public Safety or what we - somebody said we all
think of as the DMV in connection with his CDL, and has a
history of gainful employment outside of drug trafficking.
He has no criminal history, no passport or history of
international travel. His mother came forward and testified
today. I should say, I considered her testimony, too,
Sharhonda Adams' testimony. She's willing to be a
third-party custodian and have Mr. Adams live with her. I do
find that this is evidence to rebut the presumption both as
to risk of flight and danger.
The question then is, it seems to me, whether, at this point,
then, under the proper analysis here, whether the evidence of
Mr. Adams' involvement with the codefendants in drug
trafficking that included firearms and facing a long
sentence, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, means, under
these circumstances, that there's no combination of
conditions that the Court could set to reasonably assure the
safety of the community and his appearance as required if he
were to be released.
Under all the circumstances here, I believe there is such a
combination of conditions, despite the gravity of the drug
and firearm offenses that are involved in this conspiracy and
the amount of prison time that Mr. Adams faces. I don't
mean to give undue credit to this, but I should have
mentioned a moment ago, I should say, evidence of his
involvement with his now-detained codefendants in this drug
trafficking activity. Under all the circumstances here and
given the conditions and the resources that are available, I
do believe there are conditions that could be set to
reasonably assure the safety of the community and Mr.
Adams' appearance if he is released, and I will therefore
deny the Government's motion for detention and order that
Mr. Adams be released subject to certain conditions, which I
will go over now.
Dkt. No. 210 at 86-89.
those conditions required by the Court's Order Setting
Conditions is that Adams's mother serve as his
third-party custodian; that Adams “not possess a
firearm, destructive device, or other weapon”; and that
Adams “surrender all firearms by 9 am on December 29,
2017 to pretrial services as well as the concealed handgun
license” that the evidence at the detention hearing led
the Court to believe that Adams had been issued. Dkt. No. 140
at 2. The Court imposed the latter condition - and
conditioned Adams's release on its first being met -
after a discussion on the record with counsel:
THE COURT [TO MR. ADAMS]: I am going to order that you not
possess a firearm, destructive device, or other weapon. I
guess I'm happy to hear from Ms. Jones on this. I'm
not going to order that you turn over your commercial handgun
license, but simply that you don't actually possess it,
that you surrender the weapons, any weapons that you
currently have, and you not obtain any or possess any at any
time. Whether - what that does with your commercial handgun
license or the concealed handgun license under state law is,
as far as I'm concerned, for somebody else to deal with.
THE COURT: Ms. Jones, are there any other conditions the
Government would ask that I consider?
MS. JONES: Yes, Judge. The Government does request that that
weapon that he has discussed be turned in by tomorrow morning
at 9:00 a.m. to Pretrial Services. And then also I understand
the Court's position on the CHL. It's a state matter.
But that does come with an actual license. The Government
would ask that that be turned in as well to Pretrial Services
no later than 9:00 a.m. And -
THE COURT: Okay. I mean, I see what you're saying.
MS. JONES: Right.
THE COURT: I mean, surrender the -
MS. JONES: Actual - yeah.
THE COURT: Yeah.
MS. JONES: I understand the Court doesn't have
jurisdiction to revoke that license, but we would ask that
the hard copy of that license be turned in.
THE COURT: Further, I will add the condition that Mr. Adams
will surrender all firearms by 9:00 a.m. on December 29, 2017
to Pretrial Services, as well as the concealed handgun
MR. CARRIZALES: Not that it be revoked? Simply -
THE COURT: Yeah. No. Just to be clear, -
MR. CARRIZALES: - the physical license?
THE COURT: Just to be clear, the actual physical.
MR. CARRIZALES: Yes.
MS. JONES: Pretrial Services has just brought up an issue to
me. They would ask that, given the firearm and the CHL, that
he remain in custody tonight until those things are brought
tomorrow morning and that be verified by them, and that the
monitor be in place and everything set up in accordance with
the Court's conditions. In ...