United States v. Dokku

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RAVI KUMAR DOKKU, Defendant.

No. 3:18-cr-341-S (1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

April 28, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Ravi Kumar Dokku is charged by an indictment with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), Conspiracy to Commit Visa Fraud, and 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), Visa Fraud.

Mr. Dokku has filed a Motion to Modify Conditions of Pretrial Release, see Dkt. No. 169, which United States District Judge Karen Gren Scholer has referred to the undersigned for a hearing, if necessary, and determination under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), see Dkt. No. 170.

For the reasons and to the extent explained below, the Court DENIES Mr. Dokku's Motion to Modify Conditions of Pretrial Release [Dkt. No. 169].

Legal Standards

Under the Bail Reform Act, the Court is required to "order the pretrial release of the person on personal recognizance, or upon execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the court, subject to the condition that the person not commit a Federal, State, or local crime during the period of release and subject to the condition that the person cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample from the person if the collection of such a sample is authorized pursuant to section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a), unless the judicial officer determines that such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b).

If release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b) on personal recognizance or an unsecured appearance bond will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community, the Court is directed to release a defendant "subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that such judicial officer determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, which may include the condition that the person - ... (iv) abide by specified restrictions on personal associations, place of abode, or travel; ... and (xiv) satisfy any other condition that is reasonably necessary to assure the appearance of the person as required and to assure the safety of any other person and the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B); accord United States v. Byrd, 969 F.2d 106, 108 (5th Cir. 1992).

In setting conditions under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1), the Court's task is toascertain and "impose the least restrictive combination of conditions that the court determines will reasonably assure [a defendant's] appearance as required and the safety of any other person and the community." United States v. Yeh, No. 3:08-cr-96-P, 2013 WL 6568118, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2013). And the Court is directed to impose conditions that will reasonably assure - not guarantee - the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community. See United States v. Fortna, 769 F.3d 243, 250 (5th Cir. 1985).

"The judicial officer [who set a defendant's conditions of pretrial release] may at any time amend the order to impose additional or different conditions of release." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3). And, "[i]f a person is ordered released 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 - (1) the attorney for the Government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for ... amendment of the conditions of release; and (2) the person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for amendment of the conditions of release." 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a).

Background

On July 26, 2018, after a detention hearing, the undersigned United States magistrate judge released Defendant subject to an Order Setting Conditions of Release. See Dkt. No. 24.

The Court included among those conditions that Defendant is subject to location monitoring and home incarceration. See id. at 2. Mr. Dokku later filed an Unopposed Motion for Modification of Conditions of Release, see Dkt. No. 55, which the Court granted, ordering that Mr. Dokku "is no longer subject to Home Incarceration (as defined in Docket 24), but is instead subject to Home Detention (as defined in Docket 24) and is restricted to his residence at all times except for: (1) employment, (2) education, (3) religious services, (4) medical, substance abuse, or mental health treatment, (5) attorney visits, (6) court appearances, (7) court-ordered obligations, (8) appearances required by government agencies, and (9) other activities approved in advance by the pretrial services office or supervising officer," and that "[a]ll other conditions of release remain in effect," Dkt. No. 56 at 1-2.

The Court then, on the government's motion and after a hearing, further modified the Order Setting Conditions of Release [Dkt. No. 24] "to impose the following additional condition of release to which Mr. Dokku does not object and that the Court finds will, in combination with the existing conditions of release, constitute the least restrictive combination of conditions that will reasonably assure Mr. Dokku's appearance as required and the safety of any other person and the community:

• Defendant Ravi Kumar Dokku shall not personally submit or participate in the process of submitting H1-B visa application for anynew employees.

• Defendant Ravi Kumar Dokku shall not have any direct or indirect contact with any co-defendants outside the presence of his counsel.

Dkt. No. 70 at 5. And, "to facilitate Mr. Dokku's renewing his driver license, the Court [ordered that it] will authorize the Clerk of the Court to release Mr. Dokku's passport directly to one of Mr. Dokku's counsel of record, who shall maintain possession of it and personally accompany Mr. Dokku to the appropriate office get his license renewed and will then personally return the passport to the Clerk's Office the same day." Id.

In his latest Motion to Modify Conditions of Pretrial Release, Mr. Dokku asks the Court to "modify the Defendant's conditions of release by ordering the location monitoring device be removed" and explains that he

is charged with visa fraud related to H1B applicants. The allegations do not include any crimes of violence. There are no weapons or minors involved in this case. Moreover, Mr. Dokku has no prior criminal history. Additionally, the Court recently permitted Mr. Dokku to renew his passport. Each of his expired passports and his renewed passport have all been returned to the clerk's office by the undersigned. He has been on pretrial release since July 2018, and he has remained compliant with his conditions of release including location monitoring. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, U.S. Probation Officer Stuart Siegel is completely supportive of the removal of Mr. Dokku's location monitoring device. In fact, it was Mr. Siegel who initiated email communications with the undersigned today regarding his position in support of the electronic monitor being removed.

The Government, however, remains opposed to Mr. Dokku's monitor being removed since he has yet to plead guilty and he does not have a confirmed medical condition requiring removal.

Id. at 1-2.

The government then explained why it opposes Mr. Dokku's request, where he

has not pointed to any new information that materially affects the Court's determination at the time of the bail hearing that Dokku's presence at all future proceedings could not reasonably be assured without location monitoring. Indeed, none of the arguments Dokku advances explicitly or even implicitly suggest that the incentive he has to flee, which is the reason for the location monitoring requirement in the first place, is now lessened to the degree that it can be met by some other condition. The government respectfully requests, therefore, that the Court deny the defendant's motion.

....

To begin with, Dokku's argument that he is not accused of a crime of violence or other heinous crime, and that he has no prior criminal history, are irrelevant. Each of these facts was known to the Court at the time of the detention hearing, and yet the Court found that the least restrictive set of conditions that would assure his appearance as required and protect the community included a location restriction (home incarceration) verified by electronic monitoring. See Order Setting Conditions of Release, Dkt. No. 24, § 7(q), at 2. And the Court necessarily found these facts immaterial not just the once, but a second time when, in response to Dokku's request, the Court vacated the home incarceration requirement and substituted home detention, but did not vacate the requirement that he be subject to electronic monitoring. Dkt. No. 56, at 1. Thus, the Court necessarily has found these arguments immaterial and insufficient in the past, and Dokku has not put forward any argument why they should be afforded new or additional substance now.

Additionally, the argument that this Court allowed him to renew his passport is of little relevance to the question of what are the least restrictive conditions that reasonably will assure the goals of the Bail Reform Act. The Court Order to which Dokku refers required that his counsel retrieve the passport, that Dokku use it solely for renewal purposes, and that he then return the new passport to his counsel to again be surrendered to the Court. See Dkt. No. 127. Two facts are critical here. First, Dokku was not given his passport free and clear of any restrictions, and he did not possess it for any significant period oftime free from the obligation to renew it promptly and return it to counsel. And second, and most important, Dokku was subject to location monitoring throughout this period. Thus, location monitoring was

...