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. Roberts

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

January 3, 2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GABRIEL ROBERTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge

         Before the court is Defendant Gabriel Roberts's Motion for Revocation of Order of Detention Pending Trial With Authorities (“Motion”) (Doc. 16), filed November 6, 2019. After careful consideration of the Motion, the Government's response (Doc. 19), filed December 2, 2019, the record, and applicable law, the court denies Defendant's Motion for Revocation of Order of Detention Pending Trial With Authorities (Doc. 16).

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         Defendant Gabriel Roberts (“Defendant”) was named by a cooperating defendant as a participant in the clandestine manufacturing of synthetic Oxycodone and Xanax. As a result of the investigation into the alleged counterfeit prescription medication conspiracy, agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) executed a search warrant at Defendant's residence because it was alleged that he owned a pill press that was used to manufacture the counterfeit medications. The pill press was not located during the search, but a blow torch, meth pipe, multiple syringes, drug paraphernalia, and several handguns were recovered from Defendant's residence. On October 17, 2019, the grand jury indicted Defendant, and he was charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (Prohibited Person in Possession of a Firearm) and 26 U.S.C. §§§ 5845(a)(7), 5861(d), and 5871 (Possession of an Unregistered Firearm).

         On October 24, 2019, Defendant was arrested in Richardson, Texas, pursuant to a warrant issued from the Northern District of Texas. Following his initial appearance before a magistrate judge on October 25, 2019, Defendant was ordered detained pending a detention hearing. On October 30, 2019, Defendant appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford for a detention hearing. Following the hearing, the magistrate judge, finding Defendant to be a danger to the community, ordered Defendant detained and remanded to custody pending trial.

         II. Motion for Revocation of Order of Detention

         On November 6, 2019, Defendant filed this Motion, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), asking the court to revoke or set aside the magistrate judge's detention order and release him, subject to the standard conditions set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(b) or (c) because the Government failed to present any evidence supporting his detention. In support of his Motion, Defendant contends as follows:

6. The narrative of the order under OTHER REASONS OR FURTHER EXPLANATION are contrary to the evidence presented. Further the narrative places a burden on the Defendant to establish a justification for release. The Defendant was further provided evidence through discovery and personal interviews that contradict the testimony provided to the court at the hearing.
. . .
10. The Government presented no evidence that the Defendant is a risk of flight, based on his character, physical and mental condition, family ties, and employment. The Government presents no evidence that the Defendant will obstruct, threaten, injure, or intimidate any prospective witness or juror.

Def.'s Mot. ¶¶ 6, 10. Accordingly, Defendant requests that he have an “opportunity to present the contradicting evidence [obtained during discovery and personal interviews] at a hearing before the court.” Id. ¶ 7 Defendant further requests that the court consider the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) because (1) his criminal history is without violence; (2) “[h]e is an American Citizen with family ties to this community”; and (3) there “was no evidence presented to believe that [he] would not comply with conditions of release or even a release on personal recognizance or an unsecured appearance bond.” Id. ¶¶ 8, 9.

         In response, the Government contends that Defendant's Motion should be denied as there “was ample evidence to support the Magistrate's finding that [Defendant's] release posed a threat to the safety of the community and that there was no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community.” Gov't Resp. 1. The Government further contends that it presented the following evidence at the hearing:

1. Roberts had inert material1 at his residence used to clandestinely manufacture pills containing a controlled substance such as Xanax or Oxycodone using a pill press just as the investigation indicated. (Hrg. Tr. at 9:19-22, 24:18-25, 25:1-20, & 35:14-19; see also Gov. Exs. 24 & 25.)
2. After one of his coconspirators was arrested, Roberts was warned that police may be coming to the residence to search for the pill press. (Hrg. Tr. at ...

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.