Opinion
7:23-MJ-01154-KS
06-08-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RALPH BROOKS, Defendant.
This case is currently sealed.
RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter comes before the court on the United States' Motion for Revocation of Release Order and Stay of Release Order [DE 6]. Defendant has been charged by complaint with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. An arrest warrant was issued on June 1, 2023. In the current motion, the government advises that Defendant was taken into federal custody in the Northern District of Georgia and appeared before the Honorable Elizabeth McBath, U.S. Magistrate Judge, for an initial appearance on June 7, 2023. The United States moved for detention, and Magistrate Judge McBath heard the motion. Judge McBath ordered Defendant released on a monetary bond and, based on the government's stated intent to appeal the decision, stayed her order for 24 hours.
Here, the United States requests that this court revoke the magistrate judge's order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a) and stay the release order until the court can conduct a de novo review of the release order. Review under § 3145 is limited to courts in the district in which charges are pending. United States v. Patterson, No. CRIM.A. 13-137, 2013 WL 5375438, at *3 (E.D. La. Sept. 24, 2013) (citing United States v. Vega, 438 F.3d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases)). Moreover, although some courts have permitted magistrate judges to review orders under § 3145 (see United States v. Mulamba, No. 4:21-CR-40153-KES, 2022 WL 1155251, at*1 (D.S.D. Apr. 19, 2022)(citing United States v. Spilotro, 786 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1986)), this court finds persuasive those that have determined the statute authorizes review only by district judges. See Patterson, 2013 WL 5375438, at *3 (the plain language of §§ 3145(a) and (b) “authorize a district judge to review a magistrate judge's order but do nor confer this ‘same authority upon a magistrate judge in the charging district when the challenged order was issued by a magistrate judge in the arresting district.'”) (quoting United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610,615-16 (10th Cir. 2003)); see also United States v. Williams, No. 5:09-CR-317-D-2,2010 WL 883771, at *1 (E.D. N.C. Feb. 26,2010) (“the government's motion for revocation [under § 3145(a)] must accordingly be referred to presiding District Judge”).
Having determined that this is the correct district and judicial officer to hear the matter, the court finds it proper to stay Magistrate Judge McBath's release order until this court can engage in a full and proper de novo review. See United States v. Chin, No. CR 3:22-00087, 2022 WL 2760012, at *1 (S.D. W.Va. July 14, 2022) (court granted a stay of a release order until the record from the arresting district could be made available for a § 3145(a) review); see also United States v. Salazar-Andujo, 599 F.Supp.3d 491,494-95 (W.D. Tex. 2022) (collecting cases supporting the proposition that the court in the charging district can enter a stay of a release order issued by a magistrate judge of a different jurisdiction). According to the complaint, Defendant was part of a nationwide drug trafficking organization that obtained methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana where he resides in California, which was then shipped to other states, including North Carolina, during the period April 7, 2022 to March 10, 2023. Defendant was arrested in Georgia after travelling twenty-four hours by car from California to complete a drug deal. Moreover, the investigation has revealed that Defendant moved at least $250,000 through a single bank account during a two-year period in which there is no indication that Defendant was legitimately employed. Finally, according to wire intercepts, Defendant and others have discussed having direct sources of drug supply from Mexico. The court must hear the record in its entirety to determine whether pre-trial release or detention is warranted.
Therefore, the United States' motion is GRANTED IN PART as to its request for a stay of the release order; the court RESERVES JUDGMENT on the request to revoke the release order. For its de novo review under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a), the court will hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as Defendant can be present and the record from the arresting district can be made available. Magistrate Judge McBath's release order issued June 7, 2023 is STAYED pending the issuance of this court's order of review pursuant to § 3145(a). Defendant shall be transported to the Eastern District of North Carolina as promptly as possible to attend the hearing; the United States Marshal shall inform the court of his arrival. Moreover, on or before June 12,2023, the United States shall file a supplement to its motion attaching a copy of the arresting district's written record. Defendant shall file a response to the motion for revocation of the release order on or before June 15,2023. The Clerk of the Court shall provide copies of this order to counsel for the parties.
SO ORDERED,