From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Khanna

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 3, 2022
2:22-CR-0213-KJM (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-CR-0213-KJM

11-03-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NAVIN KHANNA, aka Lovin Khanna, and TINU KHANNA, aka Gagan Khanna, Defendants.

PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney VERONICA M.A. ALEGRÍA Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America


PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney VERONICA M.A. ALEGRÍA Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY RELEASE ORDER

The United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Veronica M.A. Alegria, moves this Court to stay the November 2, 2022 ruling by District of New Jersey Magistrate Judge James B. Clark, III, authorizing the pretrial release of defendants NAVIN KHANNA, aka Lovin Khanna, and TINU KHANNA, aka Gagan Khanna. The United States requests a stay of the Magistrate Judge's release order until such time that the parties can be heard before this Court on the Government's motion for revocation of that order.

This motion is based upon the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, incorporated herein by reference.

GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER RELEASING DEFENDANTS

The United States moves this Court to stay the District of New Jersey Magistrate Judge's November 2, 2022 order releasing defendants NAVIN KHANNA, aka Lovin Khanna (“N. KHANNA”), and TINU KHANNA, aka Gagan Khanna (“T. KHANNA”). The United States further requests the Court to order the defendants N. KHANNA and T. KHANNA to be transported to the Eastern District of California. Once the defendants are in this jurisdiction, the United States will request a hearing for both parties to be heard on the motion to revoke.

On October 20, 2022, a federal grand jury returned an indictment that charged N. KHANNA, T. KHANNA, and seven other defendants with Conspiracy to Transport Stolen Property Interstate in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count One). The grand jury also charged N. KHANNA, T. KHANNA, and two other defendants with Conspiracy to Launder Money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count Two), and charged N. KHANNA and other defendants with Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property (Counts Three through Six). The Honorable Jeremy D. Peterson signed arrest warrants for N. KHANNA, T. KHANNA, and the other defendants.

N. KHANNA and T. KHANNA made their initial appearances in the District of New Jersey on November 2, 2022, and were released on unsecured appearance bonds. The United States requests a stay of the defendant's release order, pending an appeal in this Court.

I. STANDARD

Under the Bail Reform Act, if a person is ordered released by a magistrate judge, then “the Government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1); United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1237 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Rule 40 and section 3145 . . . place[d] the review of the magistrate judge's order in the province of the district court where the prosecution is pending, and where the bail status of the defendant ultimately will be determined during the course of that trial.”).

When the United States files a motion to revoke a magistrate judge's release order, the district court has inherent authority to stay the release order pending the district court's ruling on the motion to revoke. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). Section 3142(f)(2)(B) expressly allows detention of the defendant “pending completion of the hearing.” The pre-trial detention issue is “pending completion” so long as the motion to revoke is pending. See United States v. Petersen, 557 F.Supp.2d 1124, 1129 (E.D. Cal. 2008), as amended (May 23, 2008) (“The U.S. Magistrate Judge was authorized to stay her OR release order upon application of the government's attorney pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B), which provides that a defendant may be detained pending completion of the detention hearing. Subsection 3145(a) mandates a prompt review of the motion to revoke the Magistrate Judge's release order, thereby providing a reasonable safeguard against unduly extended detention during review.”). A stay order simply keeps the defendant in detention during the pendency of the hearing as the statute allows.

Section 3145 and the Federal Rules anticipate that the district court with jurisdiction over the offense - i.e., this Court - will determine the issue of release or detention pending trial. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3145(a) (“the attorney for the Government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the order”); United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1237 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Rule 40 and section 3145 . . . place[] the review of the magistrate judge's order in the province of the district court where the prosecution is pending, and where the bail status of the defendant ultimately will be determined during the course of that trial.”); United States v. Vega, 438 F.3d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2006) (“After that appearance, and a preliminary hearing if the charge is sufficiently serious, the defendant must be transferred to the charging district. See Rule 5(c)(3)(D). At that point, it is the court where the charges are pending that is responsible for any rulings that may be necessary to guarantee the defendant's presence for proceedings.”).

II. ARGUMENT

The Government moves for detention in this case under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) because no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of N. KHANNA and T. KHANNA and they present a danger to the community. The government is entitled to a detention hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(A) because there is a serious risk that N. KHANNA and T. KHANNA will flee.

Given the immediate and inherent danger that N. KHANNA and T. KHANNA will flee, a stay of the release order pending a hearing on the government's motion to revoke is appropriate. Absent a stay of the New Jersey Magistrate Judge's release order, N. KHANNA and T. KHANNA will be released, allowing them to flee the United States or harm the community before this Court's de novo review of the detention issue. T. KHANNA is a citizen of India, where both T. KHANNA and N. KHANNA were born and maintain ties. N. KHANNA and T. KHANNA have the resources, connections, and ability to flee the United States and evade law enforcement. The Court should stay the release order in order to hold a hearing on the United States' motion to revoke the release order, filed separately, under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Government requests that the Court enter the attached proposed order enter the attached proposed order staying the proceedings pending a hearing on the motion to revoke.

ORDER

Upon the motion of the United States, good cause having been shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the order issued November 2, 2022, by the United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Jersey, authorizing the release of the defendants NAVIN KHANNA, aka Lovin Khanna (“N. KHANNA”), and TINU KHANNA, aka Gagan Khanna (“T. KHANNA”) shall be stayed, and N. KHANNA and T. KHANNA shall remain in the custody of the United States Marshal's Service pending further proceedings before this Court on the government's motion to revoke the release order pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3145.

It is further ORDERED that the United States Marshal's Service shall promptly transport the defendants N. KHANNA and T. KHANNA from the District of New Jersey to the Eastern District of California for such proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Khanna

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 3, 2022
2:22-CR-0213-KJM (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2022)
Case details for

United States v. Khanna

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NAVIN KHANNA, aka Lovin Khanna…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 3, 2022

Citations

2:22-CR-0213-KJM (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2022)