United States v. Riley

635 F.Supp.3d 411

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Travel Alvin RILEY, Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 1:22-cr-163 (RDA)

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

Signed October 13, 2022

Alexander Edward Blanchard, U.S. Attorney, Natasha Smalky, United States Attorney's Office, Alexandria, VA, for United States of America.

Lauren Rosen, Public Defender, Nathaniel Wenstrup, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, VA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Rossie D. Alston, Jr., United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Revoke Detention (Dkt. 24) and Motion to Dismiss the Indictment (Dkt. 27). The Court dispenses with oral argument as it would not aid in the decisional process. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(d); E.D. Va. Loc. Crim. R. 47(J). The Motions are now fully briefed and ripe for disposition. Upon consideration of the Motions together with the Government's oppositions (Dkt. 25; 29), and Defendant's reply (Dkt. 34), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Revoke Detention (Dkt. 24) is DENIED and the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 27) is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 6, 2022, a grand jury indicted Defendant Travel Alvin Riley ("Defendant") pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for knowingly possessing a Glock 23 .40 caliber semiautomatic pistol and 13 Smith & Wesson .40 caliber rounds, both of which had allegedly been shipped in interstate commerce, after previously having been convicted for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year. See Dkt. 14 at 1.

Defendant is 43 years old and has been in and out of the criminal justice system for nearly 30 years.¹ Throughout his adult criminal history, Defendant has amassed numerous charges for firearm possession and drug distribution, including distribution of controlled substances. Defendant has also demonstrated a history of abscondence. For example, on November 30, 1998, while awaiting sentencing, Defendant was permitted a temporary furlough and released to a halfway house. But ten days later, the sentencing court issued a bench warrant after being notified that Defendant had fled. On June 1, 2004, Defendant was arrested while on supervised release for his participation in a cocaine distribution conspiracy and for possession of a firearm in furtherance of that crime. Defendant completed his sentence on September 28, 2018 and began his supervision in the District of Columbia. See United States v. Paulette Martin, et al., No. 8:04-cr-235 (D. Md. Feb. 1, 2006) ("Martin"), Dkt. No. 2131.

It is now alleged that on May 19, 2022, while Defendant was working as a FedEx package courier, he left a purple-and-black, FedEx-branded satchel on a stationary conveyor belt at a FedEx facility.² Surveillance video captures what is alleged to be Defendant removing the satchel for the first time during his shift that afternoon. The video allegedly then depicts Defendant's departure from the facility and over the course of the next four hours, multiple employees touch the bag but do not open it or remove it from the conveyor belt. Then, one worker sorting packages notices the bag, picks it up, feels its contents without opening it and allegedly stores it temporarily before passing it along to the station operations manager. That worker allegedly reported feeling something heavy in the bag.

While on the phone with a security specialist, the operations manager allegedly opened the bag to discover a Glock 23 .40 caliber semiautomatic pistol joined with several court documents, multiple lottery tickets, and a clear vial containing a residual amount of a white, powdery substance and a small amount of liquid. The security specialist guided the operations manager in rendering the firearm safe, and in doing so, 13 rounds were removed from the fully loaded magazine and chamber. Security then reported the discovery to Alexandria Police Department ("APD") and an officer was dispatched to the facility.

In the interim, Defendant allegedly returned to the building before 10:00 p.m. and surveillance video shows him scouring the area where the bag had been placed. Eventually, Defendant encounters the operations manager and a security manager in the breakroom who, on video, confront him about the restriction on possessing weapons at the facility. Defendant allegedly responded "I know, I know" but denied knowing anything about a bag that was discovered with a gun earlier that day. Upon being informed that police were present in the other room, Defendant allegedly told the operations manager he could not be arrested and hurried towards the facility exit. When the security manager began to pursue Defendant, surveillance video allegedly shows Defendant begin to sprint towards the facility parking lot where he entered a vehicle and sped away.

Later that evening, the operations manager called Defendant and inquired about the court documents and lottery tickets found in the bag. Defendant allegedly acknowledged they were his but he denied knowing anything about a firearm or a vial.

On June 6, 2022, the APD arrested Defendant on a felony warrant, Defendant made bond and was released. On July 5, 2022, Defendant's Probation Officer filed a petition on supervised release in the Maryland Case summarizing the aforementioned events. United States v. Paulette Martin, et al., No. 8:04-cr-235 (D. Md. Feb. 1, 2006), Dkt. No. 2131. On July 13, 2022, Judge Sullivan ordered Defendant be detained pending his revocation hearing. Id., Dkt. No. 2139.

On July 21, 2022, Judge Fitzpatrick issued a criminal complaint and arrest warrant charging Defendant as a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Dkt. 1. On July 25, 2022, Judge Sullivan released Defendant on the condition that he submit to electronic monitoring and home confinement in the custody of his wife. Martin, Dkt. 2145. After the execution of the arrest warrant, Defendant appeared before Judge Sullivan who ordered Defendant detained pending his commitment to this District. See United States v. Travel Alvin Riley, No. 8:22-mj-2166 (D. Md. July 25, 2022), Dkt. Nos. 6-8.

On August 2, 2022, Judge Anderson ordered Defendant be temporarily detained pending a preliminary hearing and detention hearing. Dkt. 8. On August 4, 2022, Judge Anderson found probable cause to support the pending charge and determined that no suitable alternative existed to ordering Defendant detained pending trial. Dkt. 13. In compliance with this Court's trial order, Dkt. 20, Defendant timely filed his Motion to Revoke Detention Order on September 26, 2022 accompanied by a supporting memorandum, Dkt. 24. The Government opposed that motion on September 28, 2022. Dkt. 25. That day, Defendant then filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, accompanied by a supporting memorandum. Dkt. 28. The Government timely opposed that motion with an opposition brief filed on October 5, 2022. Dkt. 29. Defendant timely filed a reply brief in support of his outstanding motions on October 11, 2022. Dkt. 34. Trial remains scheduled to begin October 24, 2022. See Dkt. 20.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A defendant may move to revoke a magistrate judge's order detaining the defendant pending trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3145. The reviewing district court examines the record de novo to make an independent determination as to whether the defendant's detention is proper. See United States v. Stewart, 19 F. App'x 46, 48 (4th Cir. 2001). The court must uphold the detention order if "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the [defendant] as required and the safety of any other person and the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e); see also Stewart, 19 F. App'x at 48. Relevant factors for consideration include "(1) [the] nature and circumstances of the offenses charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person, including family ties, the person's character, ties to the community, and criminal history; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release." Stewart, 19 F. App'x at 48 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)). The reviewing court need only find a "lack of reasonable assurance of either the defendant's appearance or the safety of others or the community" to uphold a detention order. Id. The finding depends on whether the government has shown, by a preponderance of evidence, defendant poses a flight risk or that, by clear and convincing evidence, the defendant poses a danger to his community and that no conditions of release can reasonably cure these risks. See United States v. Mallory, 268 F. Supp. 3d 854, 865-66 (E.D. Va. 2017).

An indictment may be dismissed on the grounds that it is premised on the defendant's alleged violation of an unconstitutional statute. See United States v. Brown, 715 F. Supp. 2d 688, 689 (E.D. Va. 2010) (citing In re Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 8-9, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883)). A defendant may object to a defective indictment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3), "if the basis for the motion is then reasonably available and the motion can be determined without a trial on the merits." "[W]here the government does not dispute the ability of the court to reach the motion and proffers, stipulates, or otherwise does not dispute the pertinent facts," the motion is ripe for consideration. United States v. Horma, No. 3:18-cr-18, 2018 WL 4214136, at *5 (E.D. Va. Sept. 4, 2018) (citing United States v. Weaver, 659 F.3d 353, 355 n.* (4th Cir. 2011)). So long as the parties do not dispute the relevant facts and the defendant has alleged "an infirmity of law in the prosecution" such as an unconstitutional statute, a motion to dismiss the indictment is procedurally proper. United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405, 415 (4th Cir. 2012).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Revoke Detention Order

Defendant moves this Court to reconsider the...