Opinion
CRIMINAL H-18-710
09-22-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CLARENCE C. ROLAND, III
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER
Lee H. Rosenthal
Clarence C. Roland III asks the court to transfer this mortgage fraud case to either the Southern District of California or the Western or Eastern District of Washington. (Docket Entry No. 80). He appears to rely on Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. His motion, however, does not show that the convenience of the parties, any victim, or the witnesses requires or supports transfer. The witnesses are in different states, meaning that trial in any of those states, including in the Southern District of Texas, will mean that some out of state witnesses will be required. There is no record of any, much less prejudicial, pretrial publicity about this case or Mr. Roland that would make it difficult for him to get a fair trial in the Southern District of Texas.
As the government points out in its response, (Docket Entry No. 82), the indictment alleges facts that occurred as part of the charged mortgage fraud conspiracy in the Southern District of Texas. The indictment also alleges as part of the wire fraud counts that emails or faxes were sent from the Southern District of Texas to locations outside the District, and alleges as part of the money laundering counts that monetary transfers over $10,000 were sent from a bank in the Southern District.
In short, venue is proper in this district and there is no basis for transfer. Mr. Roland's motion, (Docket Entry No. 80), is denied.